War on Christmas - revisited

[Bricker]

I'd like to have a serious discussion about the so-called "War on Christmas" that garnered some attention late last year. There were a number of derisive responses to the concept of a war on Christmas, and I'm not so sure they were justified.

One response was that Christmas existed, and was so pervasive, that any "war" being fought was utterly ineffectual. I don't agree that this observation rebuts the existence of a "War on Christmas" - it merely claims that the war is ineffective or futile. Other responses denied even the existence of any activites that could be fairly called a "War on Christmas."

I believe that response fails as well, because I would argue that there are - or, rather, were - a number of events that could fairly be considered as waging war against the public celebration of Christmas. Of course, there are those that would acknowledge these events but contend that they were perfectly proper dispositions of an issue: for example, if I pointed out a case of a town removing a public Nativity scene as an example of the "war," some would respond that this is not so much "war" as it is simply properly enforcing the law of the land.

[Bricker]

As with any debate, defining the terms is a good place to start.

I contend that a series of events, each characterized by an effort to remove some traditional aspect of Christmas celebration from the public sphere, are in the aggregate fairly called a "War on Christmas." Obviously, that's a loaded term, in much the same way "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are loaded terms representing opposite sides of the abortion debate. But just as neither "pro-life" or "pro-choice" is an unfair description of the position taken by that side, so, too, "War on Charistmas" is not an inherently unfair description of a series of attacks intended to remove the celebration of Christmas from the public sphere. I grant that there could be MORE descriptive terms; still, this is not an undescriptive term.

So - when I say, "War on Christmas," I mean simply a series of attacks each intended to remove the celebration of Christmas from the public sphere.

And I contend that there was, and is, an on-going War on Christmas.

[ElvisL1ves]

Would you also define "public sphere" as "government-supported sphere"? If so, then of course there's a real effort on to enforce the Constitutional separation of church and state. Are you suggesting that's wrong?

[Kimstu]

So - when I say, "War on Christmas," I mean simply a series of attacks each intended to remove the celebration of Christmas from the public sphere.

And I contend that there was, and is, an on-going War on Christmas.

Could you now please define what you mean by "celebration of Christmas in the public sphere"? [In preview: As ElvisL1ves said.]

If that means "use of tax revenues and/or government institutions to promote explicitly religious celebration of Christmas as an occasion of Christian worship", then I agree with you that there is indeed a movement (of sorts) to oppose such activities, and I completely approve of it. (I think it's still somewhat needlessly inflammatory to describe this movement as "a War on Christmas", but I'll let the term pass if you're attached to it.)

If, on the other hand, you're using "celebration of Christmas in the public sphere" in a more general sense to mean "social and popular Christmas traditions and customs", like the much-ballyhooed greeting "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays", then I call bullshit. There is no "war" or secular movement of any kind intended to prevent or discourage Christians from celebrating Christmas publicly in a Christian manner through traditional greetings, symbols, etc., as long as they're not asking the government to sponsor them in doing so.

[BrainGlutton]

So - when I say, "War on Christmas," I mean simply a series of attacks each intended to remove the celebration of Christmas from the public sphere.

And I contend that there was, and is, an on-going War on Christmas.

So what's wrong with that?

[BrainGlutton]

One response was that Christmas existed, and was so pervasive, that any "war" being fought was utterly ineffectual. I don't agree that this observation rebuts the existence of a "War on Christmas" - it merely claims that the war is ineffective or futile.

No, but it does thoroughly rebut the idea that such a "War on Christmas" has any importance or relevance.

[Malodorous]

So - when I say, "War on Christmas," I mean simply a series of attacks each intended to remove the celebration of Christmas from the public sphere.

Obviously there's some debate about the appropriate place of the gov't in celebrating Christmas. To some it's a religious holiday, which suggests that in taking part in it's celebration the gov't is endorsing religion. But it's also a secular holiday for many people (my gf's very religious Buddhist family happily gets a tree and exchanges presents every year). Some people have tried to use legal proceedures to enforce thier view in this debate, so I guess if those are "attacks" constituting a "war", then a War on Christmas exists.

But that seems a bit bellicose, it's more of a debate caused by the ambiguity of the meaning of Christmas then a war. And the image conjured by O'Reilly et. al. of a cabal of liberals plotting the destruction of a great religious holiday is silly. Even if the few (and it is a fairly small minority of liberals IMHO) who are staging these "attacks" were to get everything they wanted, the result would simply be winter holiday parties instead of christmas parties at public schools and no nativity scenes on town land. Hardly the end of Christmas.

[Nature's Call]

Just to clarify the "war" part of the term: Is intent critical to the definition, i.e. those responsible for any event intend the demise of public Christmas celebrations?

Put another way: The internet and it's offering easy/instant e-mail has (for the sake of argument) caused a decline in the use of the regular postal service. Were the creators of the internet engaged in a war on snail mail? Or, more accurately, was the decline of snail mail an innocent casualty to something else going on?

Our global village is getting smaller and smaller. Communities are less likely to be composed of just one culture. This trend is having an effect on what once were assumed aspects of our public activities. At one time it was unspoken fact: everyone celebrates Christmas around here - unspoken because no one needed say so. This, of course, is no longer true.

Once can be threatened, of course, without the threat being intentionally delivered. To those who feel the threat, I guess it's indistinguishable whether or not there is intent. But, even if it feels like an attack doesn't mean it was supposed to be an attack.

It is highly incredible that a pissed off anti-Christmas group is forming sleeper cells with a view to undermining and eventually eradicating the public celebration of Christmas. More credible is that aspect of public life is going the way of the appendix - a perhaps once vital organ now relegated to vestigal status by the relentless march of social evolution.

[Bricker]

Just to clarify the "war" part of the term: Is intent critical to the definition, i.e. those responsible for any event intend the demise of public Christmas celebrations?

That's a very good point.

In each these instances, the intent is to remove that particular celebration. I imagine that not every actor has the intent to remove Christmas as a whole. Indeed, in some cases, the actors are not hostile to Christmas at all, and are just acting to comply with what they believe in the most prudent course: say, for example, a school principle who imposes a no-red-and-green decorations policy for the "winter party" because he believes that this is necessary or prudent to avoid a future lawsuit. In fact, no law or Supreme Court decision requires that sort of restriction... but it's a result of the climate, and falls into the general scope I'm discussing. If there's a better phrase than "War on Christmas," I'm amenable to using it.

[Bricker]

No, but it does thoroughly rebut the idea that such a "War on Christmas" has any importance or relevance.

Except that I believe I can point to individual cases in which the changes wrought in response to this perceived "attack" have been of importance, and relevance.

Can a school choir give a winter concert and sing "Silent Night" without offending the Constitution? They can. But in response to threatened lawsuits, I can document cases in which schools have removed "Silent Night" from the list of songs sung at winter concerts -- simply because they wished to avoid the expense of litigation.

That, to me, justifies the word "war" - a threatened attack, and the strategic and tactical response to avoid the cost of even winning lititgation by complying with the demands made.

[Kimstu]

Bricker, could you please clarify your definition of "celebration of Christmas in the public sphere"?

[Bricker]

So what's wrong with that?

This thread is intended to explore whether or not it's fair to say there exists such a series of attacks. It seems to me that if you agree these attacks exist, but believe they are right and proper, that's another debate.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Indeed, in some cases, the actors are not hostile to Christmas at all, and are just acting to comply with what they believe in the most prudent course: say, for example, a school principle who imposes a no-red-and-green decorations policy for the "winter party" because he believes that this is necessary or prudent to avoid a future lawsuit.
It might be interesting to go ahead and use some examples. Part of the problem with this issue is that there are figures who have a vested interest in distorting innocuous events into attacks on Christmas.

For example, I believe the red and green story is a canard (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130006) put forward by one such figure.

Daniel

[Kimstu]

If there's a better phrase than "War on Christmas," I'm amenable to using it.


I think "War on Government-Sponsored Religious Celebrations" would be a more accurate description, and "Movement Against Government-Sponsored Religious Celebrations" is even better.

We can call it "MAGSPORC" for short. :)

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

You're free, of course, to narrow your definition as much as you which, but it won't change that some people won't agree with it.

When I think of things like "The War on Drugs" or "The War on Terror" of "The War on Poverty" I think of an all-out effort to stamp out something. Granted, the War on Drugs is understood to mean illegal drugs, not just drugs. But I still think it suggests a pretty broad effort, meant to eradicate them wherever they are being used.

If someone said "War on Christmas" that would suggest to me that there was an effort to stop it from being celebrated anywhere. Raids on churches, fines for having a Christmas tree in your home, etc. Which would be a far different situation than what we see, which is (IMO) activists using the convenient pervasiveness of Christmas to find where church/state lines are (in their opinion) too blurred.

Therefore, I think the phrasing is a little too melodramatic. Even if someone wanted to say "Well, when I use that term, what I really mean is a war on PUBLIC Christmas" I'd still feel like the terminology is wrong.

[Nature's Call]

If there's a better phrase than "War on Christmas," I'm amenable to using it.
How about "More in the continuing development of the celebration of the winter solstace"? Or "Evolution of Christmas" for short? As we all know the current traditions predate Christianity (http://www.zenzibar.com/Articles/christmas.asp). Even after Christians planted its flag into the winter celebration, traditions from other sources immigrated beneath.

While Dickens and Rockwell may have frozen our current imagery of a traditional Christmas, the flux keeps on fluxing. No one says "wassail" any more. "Merry Christmas" may well be on the way out too. I wonder what store front window decorations will look like 200 years from now?

[CJJ*]

One cannot discuss the so-called "War on Christmas" without considering the political origins of the idea. For example, John Gibson's book on the topic (http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,0_1595230165,00.html)--which can fairly be described as the touchstone for those who believe there is a "War on Christmas"--is subtitled "How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought." If the author presupposes this "War on Christmas" is a "liberal plot", I don't see how anyone can take this work as a dispassionate, critical discussion; it is clearly being used as a political tool to harm a certain political segment.

But laying that bias aside, is there any validity to the notion that those who celebrate Christmas are being unfairly persecuted? First, I think we must rule out legal challenges to the celebration of Christmas; succesful or not, these are presumably decided under a fair legal system (if the debate is whether or not the US judicial system is fair, that's a separate question, except I note that approx 85% of Americans celebrate Christmas--more like 100% among elected officials--and most examples of judicial bias are in favor of the powerful/majority).

That leaves social attacks on the December holiday. One should first note that some claims of this type made by Gibson and his mouthpiece O'Reilly have proven false: For example, O'Reilly cited an elementary school in Wisconsin putting on a play in which the lyrics to "Silent Night" were altered to be more "politically correct" (he made this claim during his 1/3 appearance on Letterman). That claim is false, (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/14/silent-night-fraud/) and had been shown to be false about a month earlier. The fact that many of Bill O'Reilly's and John Gibson's claims fall apart under scrutiny makes the notion of a calculated attack on Christmas dubious.

The deciding factor for me is, quite frankly, the forum in which these maybe-true-maybe-false claims are repeatedly asserted: O'Reilly's program is a personality-driven shoutfest, and the man himself is a self-aggrandizing blowhard. That makes for entertaining TV, I'm sure, but I hardly think it's a place to expect thoughtful, well-argued positions of the issues of the day. Bottom Line: The "War on Christmas" is an invention strictly to gin-up a conflict that can play out as content on various cable-news outlets (Congress is not in session for most of December, making it a dry month for political commentary). That explanation for the presence of any "War on Christmas" is more satisfying that the ridiculous belief that anyone anywhere is worried over whether a person says "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays".

[John Mace]

I contend that a series of events, each characterized by an effort to remove some traditional aspect of Christmas celebration from the public sphere, are in the aggregate fairly called a "War on Christmas."
What specifically are these "series of events"? Your argument so far consists only of a vague reference to this war on Christmas. Nothing that can be refuted, becauser there aren't any specifics.

BTW, I'm not saying I disagree with you. I'm just saying you haven't made a case for your thesis.

[black rabbit]

Bricker, could you please clarify your definition of "celebration of Christmas in the public sphere"?

Thirded.

[jsgoddess]

"War" is simply a term I'm not going to accept for this phenomenon. It's silly.

[the PC apeman]

Bricker, are you interested in a particular "front" in this "war"? It seems to me the manger-in-the-town-square "battle" is different from last year's new Happy-Holidays-vs-Merry-Christmas in retail rant. Are those defending the "true meaning of Christmas" really the same as those keeping Christ in gift purchasing?

Maybe specifics would help. Who are the aggressor and defending "Generals" in the war you see?

[Steve MB]

I contend that a series of events, each characterized by an effort to remove some traditional aspect of Christmas celebration from the public sphere, are in the aggregate fairly called a "War on Christmas."
Nonsense. A required element (centralized coordination) of the orthodox definition of the term "war" is not in evidence.

Of course, you might be using your own definition of the term "war". If so, then to communicate with you I'll need to know what other terms you are redefining. (We might as well start with the three that made the notion famous: "alone", "sex", and "is".)

[Steve MB]

Just to clarify the "war" part of the term: Is intent critical to the definition, i.e. those responsible for any event intend the demise of public Christmas celebrations?
I don't see any possible way to achieve centralized coordination (an essential element of a "war") without intent, so I'd say yes.

[Steve MB]

Bottom Line: The "War on Christmas" is an invention strictly to gin-up a conflict that can play out as content on various cable-news outlets (Congress is not in session for most of December, making it a dry month for political commentary).
An odd coincidence, that.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Who is the enemy in this alleged "war on Christmas?" Who is the "they" that is allegedly attacking it?

This is a ridiculous, invented conflict. It's just another ludicrous way for for the Christian right to try to paint itself as a perscuted minotrity. Not one Christian has had a single right of practice compromised. Not one person. Christian or otherwise, has faced the slightest impingement on their ability to celebrate Christmas.

There are certain things the government is not allowed to do but so what? Any attempt to force religious celebrations into the public arena is, in fact, enagaging in an attack on the civil rights of non-Chrustians. You are not persecuted just because you aren't allowed to steal tax payer money to build a creche,

I think the OP has misstated the nature of this silly debate anyway. The people whining about the "war on Christmas" were not just complaining about the removal of some nativity scene somewhere, they were actually claiming that they were being victimized if other people said "happy holidays" to them instead of Merry Christmas. They were whinging and moaning that department stores had some sort of moral obligation to use the word "Christmas" in their advertizing. This whole thing was never about the rights of Christians but the arrogant belief of some of them that everybody else is obliged to celebrate their holidays with the same language and trappings right along with them.

I think a better question for debate is what the hell is the cause of the Christian Persecution Complex?

[Larry Borgia]

I think CJJ pretty much nailed it. As he (she?) and LHoD point out, the more egregious attacks on Christmas were either distorted or outright made up by Gibson, O"Relly and others. What you've got left falls into two categories.

The first is a debate about the role of government in Christmas celebrations. I think this is a worthy subject, though clearly much less important than the environment, the economy, or national security. Personally I don't have any real problem with such governmental gestures as a national Christmas tree, as long as their are governmental shout-outs to other faiths. I believe Bush gave a shout out to Muslims on Eid, and lit a national menorah on Hannukah. That seems cool to me, especially since the Christmas tree isn't a particularly Christian symbol anyway.

Second, some people seem to be very upset about the phrase "happy holidays." This is utterly baffling. Is there a more pleasant and innocous phrase than "Happy Holidays?" Even Christians celebrate New Years as well as Christmas. And the phrase seems just a polite way to recognize the minorities that celebrate other holidays besides Christmas. Even Athiests mark the New Year. The yelling seemed to concentrate around retailers, and was really annoying when directed at low-paid holiday-stressed store clerks. In this context, "happy holidays" just seems good business sense. Why risk offending potential customers of the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist varieties?

For the life of me, I cannot see how "happy holidays" threatens lessens or degrades Christmas at all.

[Lightnin']

"The War on Christmas" is a term which seeks to blame liberals for a perceived attack on Christianity. It's clearly inflammatory, and is a punditry strawman. Show me one group which has even discussed forbidding the practice and observance of Christmas by private individuals and churches. It sure makes a good rallying point for the Persecuted Christian Majority, though, doesn't it?

It seems to me that the phrase "The War on Christmas" is really just a salvo in the Right's "War on Liberals".

[Digital Stimulus]

This thread is intended to explore whether or not it's fair to say there exists such a series of attacks. It seems to me that if you agree these attacks exist, but believe they are right and proper, that's another debate.
Seeing as how you're defining the issue into existence (by not separating "government sponsored" from "individually sponsored"), it seems to me that there's little debate to be had; it's a forgone conclusion that they exist...

[Orbifold]

The word "attack" implies an intent to do harm. It's a particularly loaded word in this context, as it connotes that attempts to restrict government-sponsored Christmas celebrations are motivated by malice towards Christians...something which you, Bricker, have rightly noted is false.

You claim that using loaded terms isn't unfair if they're descriptive, but implying malice where none exists in neither descriptive nor fair.

[ElvisL1ves]

if I pointed out a case of a town removing a public Nativity scene as an example of the "war," some would respond that this is not so much "war" as it is simply properly enforcing the law of the land.
Would you not respond that way as well?

[rjung]

I just find it amusing that a lot of the folks who believe there's a vast left-wing conspiracy to "destroy" Christmas also can't grok the idea that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy to destroy the Clinton Presidency -- as if Richard Mellon Scaife and the rest of the new right (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonrightwingconspiracy.html) are merely fairies in the mist, while a secret cabal of atheist liberals coordinate plots to rewrite "Silent Night".

[Bricker]

It might be interesting to go ahead and use some examples. Part of the problem with this issue is that there are figures who have a vested interest in distorting innocuous events into attacks on Christmas.

For example, I believe the red and green story is a canard (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130006) put forward by one such figure.

Daniel

You'll notice I said "red and green decorations" as opposed to red and green clothing. The former accurately reflects the policy of the Plano Scool District prior to the filing of the lawsuit, as your link makes plain. O'Reilly may have distorted the story to refer to clothing; I was working from the complaint, and reported it correctly.

[Bricker]

But laying that bias aside, is there any validity to the notion that those who celebrate Christmas are being unfairly persecuted? First, I think we must rule out legal challenges to the celebration of Christmas; succesful or not, these are presumably decided under a fair legal system (if the debate is whether or not the US judicial system is fair, that's a separate question, except I note that approx 85% of Americans celebrate Christmas--more like 100% among elected officials--and most examples of judicial bias are in favor of the powerful/majority).


Nope.

And here's why: consider a school district threatened with an ACLU lawsuit. The school district may well cave to the demands simply to avoid litigation. This does not mean that the issue is "decided" by the legal system; no zealous advocate represented the other side before a neutral and detahced magistrate.

This sort of use of the legal system in other contexts is roundly criticized... the "SLAPP suit" - strategic lawsuit against public participation - is not a tool of justice.

I am willing to grant that the issues decided after a trial have been decided fairly. I disagree that the issues decided out of fear of the costs of litigation are decided fairly.

[Bricker]

I just find it amusing that a lot of the folks who believe there's a vast left-wing conspiracy to "destroy" Christmas also can't grok the idea that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy to destroy the Clinton Presidency -- as if Richard Mellon Scaife and the rest of the new right (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonrightwingconspiracy.html) are merely fairies in the mist, while a secret cabal of atheist liberals coordinate plots to rewrite "Silent Night".

I don't think there is a vast left-wing conspiracy. I doubt that the various actors threatening lawsuits coordinate their efforts. By the same token, I doubt that piranhas decide ahead of time which fish is responsible for attacking which juicy section of ankle. Nonetheless, even though each fish acts on his own, the ankle is well-nigh chewed away.

[Kimstu]

Bricker, you keep trying to discuss whether there's a "war" designed to "remove the celebration of Christmas from the public sphere" while failing to explain how you're defining "the celebration of Christmas in the public sphere" in the first place.

I've asked you twice now, ElvisL1ves has asked you once, so has black455. Your refusal to address this point is starting to seem just plain evasive. Could you please answer the question? Thanks.

[Zakalwe]

And here's why: consider a school district threatened with an ACLU lawsuit. The school district may well cave to the demands simply to avoid litigation.Well now, wait just a darn minute. What choice does the ACLU have? The school district has done something wrong and only *responds* when a lawsuit is threatened or filed. Should the ACLU just write a sternly worded letter and leave it at that if the District chooses to ignore it? I would suggest that the reason the District caves is that there have been enough of these cases decided by a "neutral and detached magistrate" that they know they'll lose and choose not to waste the money.

[black rabbit]

Bricker:

Can you provide any example of private or governmental individuals, organizations, or entities that have waged attempts to prevent private businesses, individuals, entities, or organzations from celebrating the Birth O' Jesus?

In case that's not clear, I am specifically excluding government entities as objects of the "attack" within the scope of my question.

[John Mace]

Bricker:

Can you provide any example of private or governmental individuals, organizations, or entities that have waged attempts to prevent private businesses, individuals, entities, or organzations from celebrating the Birth O' Jesus?
Emphasis added. Since he said "public sphere", why would you ask about the "private sphere"?

In case that's not clear, I am specifically excluding government entities as objects of the "attack" within the scope of my question.
Government entities or activities are the public sphere. Otherwise, it would be private. We talk of public lands, public funds, public schools... Why is "public sphere" so confusing?

[jsgoddess]

Emphasis added. Since he said "public sphere", why would you ask about the "private sphere"?


Government entities or activities are the public sphere. Otherwise, it would be private. We talk of public lands, public funds, public schools... Why is "public sphere" so confusing?

Public can also mean places that are open to the public.

[John Mace]

Public can also mean places that are open to the public.
But if a place is privately owned, it cannot reasonably said to be part of the "pulbic sphere". I'll let Bricker give his definition, but I don't see any confusion-- public sphere is that which we finance in common.

[jsgoddess]

public sphere is that which we finance in common.

To me the "public sphere" is where we interact with strangers and society.

[Steve MB]

I don't think there is a vast left-wing conspiracy. I doubt that the various actors threatening lawsuits coordinate their efforts.
Then you admit that the use of the term "war" is inappropriate.

[black rabbit]

Emphasis added. Since he said "public sphere", why would you ask about the "private sphere"?


Government entities or activities are the public sphere. Otherwise, it would be private. We talk of public lands, public funds, public schools... Why is "public sphere" so confusing?

What jsgoddess said. I mean "private," as opposed to "government," but still within the public sphere.

If Bricker means "government," he should say "government." But so far, he has explicitly refused to do so.

[John Mace]

To me the "public sphere" is where we interact with strangers and society.
That would be the defintion used in critical theory. Somehow, I don't see Bricker as a critical theorists, but you never know. :)

[black rabbit]

[del]explicitly[/b] implicitly

But if a place is privately owned, it cannot reasonably said to be part of the "pulbic sphere". I'll let Bricker give his definition, but I don't see any confusion-- public sphere is that which we finance in common.

If it's privately owned, it's in the private sector.

Would you contend that, say, Wal-Mart is in the "private sphere"?

I know this is a lame cite, but Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere) puts it pretty concisely:

A concept in continental philosophy and critical theory, the public sphere contrasts with the private sphere, and is the part of life in which one is interacting with others and with society at large.

Don't make me go digging through Heidegger... please...

[Bricker]

Then you admit that the use of the term "war" is inappropriate.

Well, as I said above:

Obviously, that's a loaded term, in much the same way "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are loaded terms representing opposite sides of the abortion debate. But just as neither "pro-life" or "pro-choice" is an unfair description of the position taken by that side, so, too, "War on Charistmas" is not an inherently unfair description of a series of attacks intended to remove the celebration of Christmas from the public sphere. I grant that there could be MORE descriptive terms; still, this is not an undescriptive term.

[black rabbit]

That would be the defintion used in critical theory. Somehow, I don't see Bricker as a critical theorists, but you never know. :)

I thought that 90% of what they teach you in law school is arguin'.

[MaxTheVool]

I have several thoughts on this topic, most of which have already been at least touched on by others.

(1) This entire issue is a very very minor and fairly interesting actual meaningful debate camoflaged by a name ("The War On Christmas") which is a masterpiece of misdirection and disinformation, turning it into what appears to be a gigantic oppressive cultural crusade. Now, obviously, it's standard practice to use slightly deceptive names (as you point out, "pro-choice" and "pro-life"). But there are limits to how far you can take that before it becomes unacceptable. Meaningful dialog on the troubling issue of abortion would grind to a halt if each side insisted on referring to the other as "baby-murderers" and "doctor-exploders".

Why is "War On Christmas" so completely preposterously wrong? Well, two reaons. "War" and "Christmas".

"War" is wrong because (to me, at least) "war" implies something organized and aimed and directed. If there's a "war" there has to be an enemy, and an enemy army, and enemy generals. Even if there were lots of truly outrageous examples of things that could be called "attacks on Christmas", I wouldn't say it was a war unless there was some organization in some way promoting this position in a systematic and nationwide fashion. For instance, suppose that there were, tragically, two Columbine-style attacks in the same year, but totally unrelated to each other. Would it be meaningful to talk about the "War on High Schools"?

Worse than that, though, is the word "Christmas". If there's a war (or any other sort of attack) on something, and the war is won, what happens to the something? It's conquered, destroyed, removed, blown away. If we win the war on drugs, it will mean there are no more illegal drugs. If we win the war on terror, it will be because there are no more terrorists. Thus, if there's a war on Christmas, it seems logical that the people waging that war want to get rid of Christmas. Which is just preposterous. An effort (even if there WAS a unified national effort) to completely disentagle all public funds from any conceivable mention of Christmas is no more a "war on Christmas" than a push to start enforcing speed limits with more precision is a "war on cars" or a "war on drivers".


(2) More than that, the very way the issue is presented is divisive and insulting. There is an interesting tension in our society as to precisely where the line between church and state should go. Some reasonable people might think that a Christmas Tree (with no crosses or baby jesuses) on the steps of town hall is perfectly OK, others might disagree. But if you just say "reasonable people can disagree about the precise location of the line on this tough issue", then you don't get to be a part of the general right-wing orgy of self-congratulatory liberal-bashing which has made Anne Coulter so rich and successful. Something which I tend to think that Bricker is above.

[Kimstu]

I'll let Bricker give his definition, but I don't see any confusion

Good, then it ought to be easy and simple for Bricker to explain exactly what he meant. I can't figure out why it's taking him so long.

[John Mace]

Good, then it ought to be easy and simple for Bricker to explain exactly what he meant. I can't figure out why it's taking him so long.
Especially since he said in post #2:

As with any debate, defining the terms is a good place to start.
:)

[buns3000]

If there's a better phrase than "War on Christmas," I'm amenable to using it. How about "Global Struggle Against Christmas"?

[Steve MB]

"War on Charistmas" is not an inherently unfair description
Er, yes it is -- it implies a central coordination where (by your own admission) none exists. In effect, it allows you to float a conspiracy theory without carrying the baggage of being known as a conspiracy theorist.

[tomndebb]

I don't think there is a vast left-wing conspiracy. I doubt that the various actors threatening lawsuits coordinate their efforts. By the same token, I doubt that piranhas decide ahead of time which fish is responsible for attacking which juicy section of ankle. Nonetheless, even though each fish acts on his own, the ankle is well-nigh chewed away.On the other hand, I have never in my life heard anyone discuss the piranha war on mammals.
I echo the sentiments voiced above: a war that lacks a coherent goal and an organizing command may be considered a trend or a movement, but it can hardly be considered a war.


If there's a better phrase than "War on Christmas," I'm amenable to using it. I'm afraid we cannot let you do that. The whole point of the "War on Christmas" silliness was an effort by one man to sell books and another man to sell air time. It only has meaning in the context of that phrase. If you wished to discuss some other topic, you should have made that the subject of the thread.


And here's why: consider a school district threatened with an ACLU lawsuit. The school district may well cave to the demands simply to avoid litigation. This does not mean that the issue is "decided" by the legal system; no zealous advocate represented the other side before a neutral and detahced magistrate. OK. I have considered it. I will now laugh it right out of the thread.
Based on the history of "prayer in school" and "religion in school," I suspect that the ACLU has threatened (or actually filed) more suits to protect individuals from administrative harrassment than to intimidate administrations into eliminating religion from people's lives. From my reading of many stories on these topics, a school has typically done a pre-emptive ban on a student praying to himself or herself, wearing religious icons, or reading a work of scripture and the ACLU has had to threaten or file suit to get the administration to actually read the law and recognize that those individual acts are permitted. Generally those prohibitions have been imposed by ignorant administrations that have never actually read about the Lemon test.
So, how many suits has the ACLU filed or threatened regarding the content (or naming) of school concerts typically held in December? Without an actual number of suits filed or threatened in each direction, your hypothetical is little more than O'Reillyan rhetoric.

[Miller]

On the other hand, I have never in my life heard anyone discuss the piranha war on mammals.

Another example of the powerful and influential Piranha lobby in Washington.

[Zakalwe]

But if a place is privately owned, it cannot reasonably said to be part of the "pulbic sphere". I'll let Bricker give his definition, but I don't see any confusion-- public sphere is that which we finance in common.Well, there's the definition used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A place of "public accomodation" was held to be subject to the same anti-discrimination provisions as the government even though privately owned. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v United States (http://www.justia.us/us/379/241/)

[Frostillicus]

Silliest issue ever.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well, there's the definition used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A place of "public accomodation" was held to be subject to the same anti-discrimination provisions as the government even though privately owned. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v United States (http://www.justia.us/us/379/241/)
Do we have any examples of anti-Christmas operatives working to prevent privately owned places of public accomodation from celebrating Christmas, from using Christmas decorations or language in their advertising or displays, etc?

We DO have examples of Christians trying to pressure privately owned businesses into making more explicit acknowledgement of Christmas. I'm not aware of any attempt by the ACLU or anyone else to prevent those acknowledgements.

[Zakalwe]

Do we have any examples of anti-Christmas operatives working to prevent privately owned places of public accomodation from celebrating Christmas, from using Christmas decorations or language in their advertising or displays, etc?Sorry, I think you misunderstood my point (not that I helped you much), I was trying to point out that it *is* necessary for Bricker to define what he means by "public sphere" since there are instances of privately owned businesses being treated as public for all practical purposes. If you'll read my first post in this thread, I think you'll find I'm on your side.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Sorry, I think you misunderstood my point (not that I helped you much), I was trying to point out that it *is* necessary for Bricker to define what he means by "public sphere" since there are instances of privately owned businesses being treated as public for all practical purposes. If you'll read my first post in this thread, I think you'll find I'm on your side.
Sorry. Mea Culpa. I would still like to address my questions to Bricker, though.

[John Mace]

Do we have any examples of anti-Christmas operatives working to prevent privately owned places of public accomodation from celebrating Christmas, from using Christmas decorations or language in their advertising or displays, etc?
Not that I'm aware of.

We DO have examples of Christians trying to pressure privately owned businesses into making more explicit acknowledgement of Christmas. I'm not aware of any attempt by the ACLU or anyone else to prevent those acknowledgements.
Can you say "O'Reilly"?

Well, there's the definition used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A place of "public accomodation" was held to be subject to the same anti-discrimination provisions as the government even though privately owned. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v United States
Anti-discrimination doesn't have anything to do with the freedom to pratice one's religion on one's property, though. A court can order a creche removed from a public school, but not from a department store or a restaurant.

[Bricker]

"War" is wrong because (to me, at least) "war" implies something organized and aimed and directed. If there's a "war" there has to be an enemy, and an enemy army, and enemy generals. Even if there were lots of truly outrageous examples of things that could be called "attacks on Christmas", I wouldn't say it was a war unless there was some organization in some way promoting this position in a systematic and nationwide fashion. For instance, suppose that there were, tragically, two Columbine-style attacks in the same year, but totally unrelated to each other. Would it be meaningful to talk about the "War on High Schools"?

I don't agree.

Consider "guerilla warfare." It's well understood that this phrase refers to irregular warfare conducted by independent units carrying out harassment and sabotage. There are no armies, no generals - and yet "warfare" is a well-accepted term.

Now, if there were two Columbine-style attacks, I think it might indeed be crazy to talk about any "War on High Schools". But if there were TEN in a year, then I don't think it would be out of line for someone to describe this as a War on High Schools -- or, perhaps, a War on Bullies, depending on one's perspective.

Worse than that, though, is the word "Christmas". If there's a war (or any other sort of attack) on something, and the war is won, what happens to the something? It's conquered, destroyed, removed, blown away. If we win the war on drugs, it will mean there are no more illegal drugs. If we win the war on terror, it will be because there are no more terrorists. Thus, if there's a war on Christmas, it seems logical that the people waging that war want to get rid of Christmas. Which is just preposterous. An effort (even if there WAS a unified national effort) to completely disentagle all public funds from any conceivable mention of Christmas is no more a "war on Christmas" than a push to start enforcing speed limits with more precision is a "war on cars" or a "war on drivers".

Well, again, "War on Christmas" is a short-hand phrase. I agree that the proponents of this war -- the guerilla activists -- are not united in their desire to be rid of Christmas entirely, although I believe some of them would like just that. But many others simply want to remove any tint of religious meaning from Christmas, making it an entirely secular event, and others want to demonstrate their understanding and compliance with principles of "tolerance," "diversity," and "multiculturalism," and are not really concerned with a particular end goal.

So we have what amounts to guerilla warfare: independent units, each conducting harrassing, sabotaging missions, uncoordinated by any master plan, not sharing the same vision of an end goal.

(2) More than that, the very way the issue is presented is divisive and insulting. There is an interesting tension in our society as to precisely where the line between church and state should go. Some reasonable people might think that a Christmas Tree (with no crosses or baby jesuses) on the steps of town hall is perfectly OK, others might disagree. But if you just say "reasonable people can disagree about the precise location of the line on this tough issue", then you don't get to be a part of the general right-wing orgy of self-congratulatory liberal-bashing which has made Anne Coulter so rich and successful. Something which I tend to think that Bricker is above.

Reasonable people may certainly disagree on the specifics of this issue. And reasonable people may even use the courts -- and even threats of invoking the court system -- to shape public policy consistent with their views.

And reasonable people may participate in guerilla warfare, too. I grant you that "War on Christmas" is a title that is designed to paint the people on one side as less reasonable than the people on the other.... just as pro-life and pro-choice are such titles. Even so, it's not wrong to call an abortion opponent pro-life, and it's not wrong to call an advocate of reproductive rights pro-choice. Nor is it wrong to call these actions, in the aggregate, a war on Christmas.

[Bricker]

Er, yes it is -- it implies a central coordination where (by your own admission) none exists. In effect, it allows you to float a conspiracy theory without carrying the baggage of being known as a conspiracy theorist.

Answered above. See "guerilla warfare."

[Bricker]

I'm afraid we cannot let you do that. The whole point of the "War on Christmas" silliness was an effort by one man to sell books and another man to sell air time. It only has meaning in the context of that phrase. If you wished to discuss some other topic, you should have made that the subject of the thread.

Well, as I mentioned when I sarted this thread, one of the objections to "War on Christmas" was a general sense of "ain't no such thing, whatsoever!" If we can agree that what I am describing exists, I believe we are in the position that early rhetors in the abortion wars (he said, only slightly tongue-in-cheek) must have been with regard to "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Even today, I have seen pro-choice people on this very board rail against the use of "pro-life" to describe abortion opponents. Yet most people today acknowledge that this is a fair, if somewhat slanted, description of the concept. Ditto, of course, for "pro-choice" and the other side.


OK. I have considered it. I will now laugh it right out of the thread.
Based on the history of "prayer in school" and "religion in school," I suspect that the ACLU has threatened (or actually filed) more suits to protect individuals from administrative harrassment than to intimidate administrations into eliminating religion from people's lives. From my reading of many stories on these topics, a school has typically done a pre-emptive ban on a student praying to himself or herself, wearing religious icons, or reading a work of scripture and the ACLU has had to threaten or file suit to get the administration to actually read the law and recognize that those individual acts are permitted. Generally those prohibitions have been imposed by ignorant administrations that have never actually read about the Lemon test.
So, how many suits has the ACLU filed or threatened regarding the content (or naming) of school concerts typically held in December? Without an actual number of suits filed or threatened in each direction, your hypothetical is little more than O'Reillyan rhetoric.

I think your laughter is premature. (Hie yourself over to the Four Kings studio audience; I think they could use you!) If I can show the threat of, let us say, six lawsuits in the past year, and actually six others filed or actively litigated, would you say that this is sufficient to raise the spectre I'm describing? I'd like to nail down some number first, lest I provide cites and be told, "Well, that's a drop in the bucket; that doesn't count!"

[Apos]

Maybe someone should make the alternative case.

There is a War on Decency and Honest Debate about Legitimate Policy Issues. Bricker is, unwittingly or not, part of this war. It seeks to politicize local conflicts, often by blaring them as headlines while leaving out crucial facts, as well as actively trying to create and exacerbate social conflict where once there was reasonable compromise. The purpose of this war is to flush money into the coffers of wealthy advocacy organizations, pundits, the Republican party, and conservative Christian activists. It's about as sincere as anyone was about the fate of Terry Shiavo, who was a huge cause and money maker, but somehow, none of that money ever seems to have made it into the coffers, of say, paying for the life support of a poor person who will die without it.

Currently, the hysteria revolves largely around stoking the paranoia or conservative Christians for partisan ends, and by playing along, people like Bricker sadly are allowing their one sacred religion to slide deeper and deeper into an actively shallow and partisan mockery.

Some examples. Here' STOPTHEACLU, part of Brickers coordinated or perhaps uncoordinated (via pirrana voodoo?) attack on the decency of honest debate and the good public name of his own faith.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_01_22_archive.html#113812467523099029
A county tries to set up a situation in which there is a Christian nativity scene. The ACLU rightly demands that any such space be made freely available: a free speech zone. If Christians can put up their displays, anyone should be able to. The county then rather craftily gets around this by enacting a huge liability insurance clause that only the wealthy Christian churches can afford. The ACLU sues, calling this an undue burden on free speech. The county eradicates the zone. This is then billed by Brickers fellow travelers as the ACLU attempting and succesfully supressing Christianity.

Another situation from recent memory: a student, backed by a Christian Nation advocacy organization, tries to start a Bible reading class during recess. The principle, who happens to have a Bible on her own desk, says that recess is not a group activity or reading time: it's phys ed. Organizations like the agape press are ready, and blare "School bans Bible reading!" leaving out just about every key detail that places the principles actions in relevant context (for instance, that Bible reading is permitted during any student free time, Bible study groups are allowed at other times, etc.)

Declaration of Indepedence banned is another great example. There have been conservative boycotts proposed of private businesses that use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" (despite the fact that, hell, most people used and still use Happy Holidays interchangably with Merry Christmas before O'Reily and other of Brickers vast cabal came along to turn a joyus season into yet another tiresome political weapon: something no doubt that Christ will greatly reward these proud warriors for shitting on the faith for doing)

I think the war, while the name I picked for it sucks, has far more substance, coordination, motive, than any war on Christmas. I can name hundreds of cases where the ACLU has defended the freedom of religious expression. Can Bricker name a single case that the many prominent Christian Nation legal firms have litigated that involve abusing and demeaning the very idea of religion by trying to turn it into some cheap political ploy or secretarian endorsement?

[Bricker]

I think the war, while the name I picked for it sucks, has far more substance, coordination, motive, than any war on Christmas. I can name hundreds of cases where the ACLU has defended the freedom of religious expression. Can Bricker name a single case that the many prominent Christian Nation legal firms have litigated that involve abusing and demeaning the very idea of religion by trying to turn it into some cheap political ploy or secretarian endorsement?

Nope, can't name a single case that fits the description above.

[monavis]

I agree with Diogenes, and would add that I believe the Religious Fanatics are so afraid that if everyone doesn't believe as they do that they may be wrong and are afraid to look in to any other belief. The only war is in their minds. How did Christianity survive with out the celebration of Christmas for hundreds of years?

Because the businesses that helped make Christmas the big celebration it is says "Happy Holidays; taking into consideration that there are people of many faiths that they do business with also celebrate holiday's other then Christmas.

The far religious right will consider themselves attacked unless they have a theocracy like the Taliban in Afghanistan. They want people to tolerate their religion but won't tolerate others to have their beliefs. Fear is a big driver for a Fanatic....Hence the wisdom of our forefathers to have separation of church and state!

Monavis

[Harborwolf]

If I can show the threat of, let us say, six lawsuits in the past year, and actually six others filed or actively litigated, would you say that this is sufficient to raise the spectre I'm describing? I'd like to nail down some number first, lest I provide cites and be told, "Well, that's a drop in the bucket; that doesn't count!"Okay Bricker. Time to stop playing and lay all of your cards on the table.

[Zakalwe]

Nope, can't name a single case that fits the description above.Oh. Oh. Let me! Let me!

The Association of Christian Schools International and several California schools filed a lawsuit challenging the University of California's policy not to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin’s theory of evolution. Specifically, at least one book published by Bob Jones University:
cite (http://www.economist.com/World/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5300912)

Now, any chance I'll get a response to post #36?

John Mace, see my following post. The point was to demonstrate that "public sphere" =/= "government" and thus, it is necessary for Bricker to provide a definition so that we'll know what we're debating.

[Bricker]

Okay Bricker. Time to stop playing and lay all of your cards on the table.

So the goal-post crew can get busy moving?

Why don't we lock down the goal posts first?

[Ludovic]

So the goal-post crew can get busy moving?

Why don't we lock down the goal posts first?IOW, your post is your cite.

[Zakalwe]

So the goal-post crew can get busy moving?
Why don't we lock down the goal posts first?Speaking only for myself, I think that if you can find "six lawsuits in the past year, and actually six others filed or actively litigated" that would satisfy *me*. However, I'm going to put a caveat on it. None of the lawsuits can be against a governmental entity (as opposed to whatever the heck a "public sphere" entity is) alleging an improper endorsement of religion vis a vis the 1st Amendment since those lawsuits properly *should* be brought. However, any lawsuits attacking Christmas just for the sake of attacking Christmas are fair game.

Next up: We discuss the "War on Rational Thought" being propogated by the religious right.

[Gadarene]

There're a whole lot of cogent questions and observations from the first page of this thread that have been overlooked by the OP, including, inter alia Kimstu's question regarding the public sphere. Before we talk about moving the goalposts, how 'bout you address some of the concerns that have been raised? After speaking to Kimstu's question, you can take a look at the excellent posts of Nature's Call [#16] and CJJ* [#17], and then tackle John Mace [#18], ThePCapeman [#21], and Diogenes [#25]. To start.

[Digital Stimulus]

Well, as I mentioned when I sarted this thread, one of the objections to "War on Christmas" was a general sense of "ain't no such thing, whatsoever!" If we can agree that what I am describing exists...
As I said earlier, if "what you are describing" refers to court cases involving the separation of church and state, then you are defining the "problem" into existence. It is an objective fact that such cases exist. There's no moving of goalposts going on (yet), as you're evading the establishment of the playing field. It feels like you want to play a game of Gotcha! to me...

As others have asked, can you provide a list of cases where participation of a government entity was not part of the objection? By analogy, would you consider the court case involving Roy Moore's 10 commandments display at a federal courthouse part of a "War on Christianity"? Surely you concede that the courts are the proper place to decide the consitutional limits of the SoCaS?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

You'll notice I said "red and green decorations" as opposed to red and green clothing. The former accurately reflects the policy of the Plano Scool District prior to the filing of the lawsuit, as your link makes plain. O'Reilly may have distorted the story to refer to clothing; I was working from the complaint, and reported it correctly.
No, actually, the former does not accurately reflect the policy of teh Plano School District (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121405dnmetoreilly.129ac712.html):

Mr. Abernathy [an attorney for the school system] said that the district did not ban red and green napkins and that the letter, sent by a parent teacher association, asked for white because it was a winter party and white signifies snow.
What really happened in this case, near as I can make out, is that:
1) Some kid wanted to give out candy-cane pens at a holiday party, pens that were emblazoned with explicitly religious messages.
2) The school forbade it.
3) The parents complained.
4) The school district reversed the teacher and allowed religious messages to be distributed at the party.
5) The lawsuit, for some reason that I cannot determine, is continuing.

Why am I picking on this case? Because I suspect that much of the "war on Christmas" comes down to such trivialities. Yes, a school district may have come down on the wrong side of the first amendment by prohibiting a child from distributing a religious message during a school-sanctioned event. But what actually happened is a very far cry from the school's prohibiting red and green decorations, much less prohibiting red and green clothing.

Daniel

[Jackmannii]

We're well into the second page of this discussion, and numerous posters have asked Bricker to clarify his use of the term "public sphere". I'm curious as well.

Perhaps he is reluctant to do so because it would compromise the validity of his use of the term "War on Christmas".

It is telling that the other "Wars" that have been devised, i.e. "War on Terror", "War on Poverty", "War on Drugs" etc. all seem have been conducted by government entities. On the other hand, the so-called "War on Christmas" reflects citizen action, through individual or group initiative, to keep government from endorsing a particular religion. But it's hard to rally the troops on the basis of countering citizen action, so we have the specter of a "War" by the Godless.

It would be more apt to refer to a "War on Evolution", since it is largely government bodies (state legislatures and boards of education) that are pushing to minimize the importance of evolution and introduce non-scientific alternatives.

Yet I don't like the sound of a "War on Evolution", or any of the other "Wars" for that matter. They trivialize actual wars (such as the undeclared one we are fighting in Iraq) and the sufferings of those involved in such conflicts.

So enough of "War On ___". This terminology demeans those who fight actual wars, and promotes extreme tactics by those quarreling over a particular issue (all's fair in "War", after all).

[ElvisL1ves]

If we can agree that what I am describing existsIf you could provide any real examples whatsoever, you might have a point we could discuss. But nobody here appears ready to validate anyone else's fantasies, and nothing you've posted here so far under the guise of fact is indeed factual. Nothing.

If I can show the threat of, let us say, six lawsuits in the past year, and actually six others filed or actively litigated, would you say that this is sufficient to raise the spectre I'm describing?Can you do so? It's high time you provided some factual basis for discussion, wouldn't you say?

It looks like you're simply abandoning the problem of defining your terms, hoping it will simply go away, so soon after declaring it a "good place to start". Will you give us all the courtesy of doing so explicitly? Your desire to discuss your topic in good faith is not at all apparent.

[Bricker]

The parents' sworn declaration in support of their lawsuit alleges that red and green decorations were prohibited. It's entirely plausible that the school district will now say that this was not their policy. Nonetheless, "no red and green decorations" are precisely what the principal told the parents the policy was. But for the parents' lawsuit, the actual policy may never have come to light, and the principal's mistaken statement of policy would have been left unchallenged.

You're attacking the wrong argument. Many of the "policies" that constitute what I am calling the "War on Christmas," are NOT valid... they either contravene official policies, extend official policies inappropriately, or fly in the face of established Supreme Court precedent. My point is: these invalid policies, these misstatements, these errors, are out there, and they are in the aggregate having an effect on the Christmas holiday.

[Bricker]

The very trend of "winter party" is not required by any law or case. No Constitutional offense happens if a school district decides to call their event a Christmas party.

BUT - when a school district, BELIEVING that "Christmas party" makes them vulnerable to litigation, chooses to rename their event to "winter party," then what I am complaining of has occurred.

[Bricker]

We're well into the second page of this discussion, and numerous posters have asked Bricker to clarify his use of the term "public sphere". I'm curious as well.


I was unaware that "public sphere" had a technical meaning in the world of critical theory. I was using the phrase simply to mean: in public. It was intended to encompass public schools, federal, state, and local government action, and privately owned businesses that are "places of public accomodation" within the meaning of civil rights laws.


It would be more apt to refer to a "War on Evolution", since it is largely government bodies (state legislatures and boards of education) that are pushing to minimize the importance of evolution and introduce non-scientific alternatives.


If you said there's a war on evolution.... I'd agree.

[Bricker]

you can take a look at the excellent posts of Nature's Call [#16] and CJJ* [#17], and then tackle John Mace [#18], ThePCapeman [#21], and Diogenes [#25]. To start.

Nature's Call post 316 suggests that this is merely part of the on-going evolution of Christmas. That may be true. It doesn't negate the fact that people, and groups, are creating this "evolution" through use of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits. This is a change from the past. That is, I'm referring not to the change in how we celebrate Christmas, but a change in how we change the celebration of Christmas. And because this method of change is contentious, and involves adversarial court action or the threat of it, "War" is appropriate.

[ElvisL1ves]

I was using the phrase simply to mean: in public.So we can all agree there's no "war on Christmas" in private worth mentioning? Good. :dubious: That's at least a start.

It was intended to encompass public schools, federal, state, and local government action, and privately owned businesses that are "places of public accomodation" within the meaning of civil rights laws.Why put those two together? Certainly there's a stronger sentiment than in the past, probably attributable to our increased multiculturality and secularity, that the Constitutional separation of church and state is a necessary thing, to be defended even in places it hasn't been defended in the past. Would you care to address that?

In the private arena, you have not provided any factual instances to discuss, though you have (without apology or even retraction) put your fellow Dopers to the trouble of debunking several things you have offered up to us.

So where is this "war" you allege?

[Bricker]

you can take a look at the excellent posts of Nature's Call [#16] and CJJ* [#17], and then tackle John Mace [#18], ThePCapeman [#21], and Diogenes [#25]. To start.

John Mace's #18 asks for specifics as far as cases go. Examples:


the already-discussed Plano Independent School District's edict, since repudiated, that students were not permitted to bring red and green decorations to the holiday party, and were not permitted to distribute religiously-themed gifts, even during lunch or recess.
Memphis-Shelby County Library's decision to allow a "Nativity" scene with a manger and shepherds but with no Jesus, Mary, or Joseph figures permitted
Illinois state government directive to workers forbidding the words "Merry Christmas" at work

[Bricker]

There're a whole lot of cogent questions and observations from the first page of this thread that have been overlooked by the OP, including, inter alia Kimstu's question regarding the public sphere. Before we talk about moving the goalposts, how 'bout you address some of the concerns that have been raised? After speaking to Kimstu's question, you can take a look at the excellent posts of Nature's Call [#16] and CJJ* [#17], and then tackle John Mace [#18], ThePCapeman [#21], and Diogenes [#25]. To start.

ThePCapeman's post #21 asks about the attacking and defending generals I see in this war. As I've already explained since that post was made - but subsequent to YOUR post requesting a reply - I view this as akin to "guerilla warfare," independent actions by independent groups. The question about generals is thus inapposite.

[Bricker]

finally, Diogenes post #25: It's unclear to me what point, specifically, requires a response. Post #25 suggests that this is an invented conflict. This would seem to to be contradicted by the examples raised thus far. The post then goes on to say that no Christians have had a right of practice compromised. That may be, but since I never claimed that Christians DID have rights of practice compromised, it's a strawman assertion.

Perhaps, Gadarene, you could identify the specifics in Post #25 that require a response from me.

[tomndebb]

I don't agree.

Consider "guerilla warfare." It's well understood that this phrase refers to irregular warfare conducted by independent units carrying out harassment and sabotage. There are no armies, no generals - and yet "warfare" is a well-accepted term.I disagree with your disagreement. While there are often cases of semi-independent cells that engage in various actions, I can think of no event that has been called a guerilla war that did not involve an overall guided movement. Truly autonomous groups all attacking a government are more likely to be described as the actions of individual warlords and each will be considered a separate guerilla war.

I do not really want to send you off looking for citations of some chaotic situation that got described as a guerilla war over which we can hijack the thread as to the appropriate naming of that event, but I think the general usage indicates my problem with your metaphor. There is no concerted movement to assault whatever you eventually define as Christmas in whatever you finally define as the non-governmental public sphere.

Instead, there is a general, population driven, secularization of the country that has resulted in a turbulent situation: people who recognize that this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country attempt to set new boundaries where everyone will feel welcome to participate in all of society while a small coterie of people who want this to be a 100% Christian nation (regardless of population) scream loudly that their hegemony is being wrested from them.

[tomndebb]

BUT - when a school district, BELIEVING that "Christmas party" makes them vulnerable to litigation, chooses to rename their event to "winter party," then what I am complaining of has occurred. So, if I move into a neighborhood and I have small chioldren and my neighbor puts up a 14' privacy fence because he is sure that my children will run havoc through his yard (even though they have not actually set foot on his property), I am waging a war on privacy or the peace of a neighborhood?

Since when does the overreaction of the ignorant become evidence that an aggression has occurred?

[Gadarene]

Bricker:
Perhaps, Gadarene, you could identify the specifics in Post #25 that require a response from me.

Gladly. First, though, I wanted to thank you for addressing the posts to which I directed your attention, and to point out that you missed CJJ* in Post #17. :)

I also confess that I was referring to a different portion of ThePCapeman's post in #21, and I should have made that clear. Specifically, I'm interested in your thoughts on whether there's a substantive difference (assertions of centralized coordination notwithstanding) between what seem to be "defensive" challenges to the War on Christmas -- that is, the desire to preserve existing town manger scenes or other examples of traditional or status quo holiday celebrations in the face of secular attack -- and "offensive" challenges, such as efforts to squelch the use of the phrase "Happy Holidays," which has a specific and discrete meaning that isn't simply interchangeable with "Merry Christmas." Thus ThePCapeman's references to "defending the true meaning of Christmas" as opposed to "keeping Christ in gift purchasing."

This also ties into the questions raised in Diogenes's post. He refers to the defensive/offensive distinction, and asks, "Who is the enemy in this alleged "war on Christmas?" Who is the "they" that is allegedly attacking it? . . . There are certain things the government is not allowed to do but so what? Any attempt to force religious celebrations into the public arena is, in fact, enagaging in an attack on the civil rights of non-Christians." I'm interested to hear your take on that, and your general thoughts on where the Establishment Clause, and efforts to enforce it against perceived violations, fit into the War on Christmas framework.

[John Mace]

the already-discussed Plano Independent School District's edict, since repudiated, that students were not permitted to bring red and green decorations to the holiday party, and were not permitted to distribute religiously-themed gifts, even during lunch or recess.
I'm confused. If this is "already repudiated" then how does it still qualify as an example?

Memphis-Shelby County Library's decision to allow a "Nativity" scene with a manger and shepherds but with no Jesus, Mary, or Joseph figures permitted
That consititutes a war? I wouldn't even call that a minor skirmish.

Illinois state government directive to workers forbidding the words "Merry Christmas" at work
Can we have a cite that explains the full context? I find it doubtful that a state government could muzzle employees thusly.

[ess_tee]

Who is the enemy in this alleged "war on Christmas?" Who is the "they" that is allegedly attacking it?

This is a ridiculous, invented conflict. It's just another ludicrous way for for the Christian right to try to paint itself as a perscuted minotrity. Not one Christian has had a single right of practice compromised. Not one person. Christian or otherwise, has faced the slightest impingement on their ability to celebrate Christmas.

There are certain things the government is not allowed to do but so what? Any attempt to force religious celebrations into the public arena is, in fact, enagaging in an attack on the civil rights of non-Chrustians. You are not persecuted just because you aren't allowed to steal tax payer money to build a creche,

I think the OP has misstated the nature of this silly debate anyway. The people whining about the "war on Christmas" were not just complaining about the removal of some nativity scene somewhere, they were actually claiming that they were being victimized if other people said "happy holidays" to them instead of Merry Christmas. They were whinging and moaning that department stores had some sort of moral obligation to use the word "Christmas" in their advertizing. This whole thing was never about the rights of Christians but the arrogant belief of some of them that everybody else is obliged to celebrate their holidays with the same language and trappings right along with them.

I think a better question for debate is what the hell is the cause of the Christian Persecution Complex?

No One going to bring up the "In God We Trust" quote

[Zakalwe]

Memphis-Shelby County Library's decision to allow a "Nativity" scene with a manger and shepherds but with no Jesus, Mary, or Joseph figures permittedInteresting that you should mention this one since the only other news items I could find regarding this institution was an organized action by a coalition of conservative groups to force the library to institute filtering on their internet connections in 1999.
cite (http://weeklywire.com/ww/10-11-99/memphis_cvr.html)
Local news coverage of the filtering controversy has portrayed the pro-filtering movement as a ground-swell, a spontaneous outcry from local citizens about how their tax dollars are being spent. And while the outcry may be genuine, the movement has been far from spontaneous, or even local. Instead, it has been a concerted campaign led by the CCV and other groups, including the Cincinnati-based National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families and the local family-values group FLARE (Family, Life, America, Responsible Education).


Illinois state government directive to workers forbidding the words "Merry Christmas" at workCite? I can only find this listed on conservative blogs/websites with no reference to the original story.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

The parents' sworn declaration in support of their lawsuit alleges that red and green decorations were prohibited. It's entirely plausible that the school district will now say that this was not their policy. Nonetheless, "no red and green decorations" are precisely what the principal told the parents the policy was. But for the parents' lawsuit, the actual policy may never have come to light, and the principal's mistaken statement of policy would have been left unchallenged.
Can you cite the claim that the principal told the parents that this was the policy? If so, can you cite the claim that this is significant? According to the cites I have provided, the PTA (not the principal) asked for white napkins in keeping with a snowy theme. This is no more pernicious to my eyes than if the PTA asked for pastel colors for a Spring dance and asked parents not to provide crimson decorations.

I just don't think there's any there there. Most likely, it seems to me, some parents eager for a fight misconstrued the PTA's innocent color recommendations as a deadly attack on God. This is like the war that dandelions wage on the Green Hornet.

Daniel

[ElvisL1ves]

And, more to the point, you've made it quite clear, in your own discussion of your support for Alito and elsewhere, that it's vitally important that the Constitution be understood as meaning what it says.

Well, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I trust you acknowledge that Christmas is primarily Christian, that Christianity is a religion, and therefore that government support of it is unconstitutional. So what is your objection grounded in? Is the Constitution only to be invoked when it says what you want it to say? Or do you, like so many others who share your party affiliation, place "God's Law" above man's Law with the exception that they'll admit it?

[ElvisL1ves]

How about "Global Struggle Against Christmas"?And Christmas-related program activities?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I was using the phrase simply to mean: in public. It was intended to encompass public schools, federal, state, and local government action, and privately owned businesses that are "places of public accomodation" within the meaning of civil rights laws.
Can you cite any examples of anyone trying to prevent privately owned places of public accomodation from celebrating, advertising or otherwise acknowledging Christmas?

How do you feel about the concerted efforts by some Christians to strong arm privately owned businesses into making more explicit acknowledghements of Christmas? Are those "attacks?" Are they appropriate?

Other than one unresolved and misreported case about Christmas decorations, you don't seem to have much ammo here. I think your other (2) examples are perfectly appropriate instances of keeping the state from endorsing religion.

I think you also need to realize that vast majority of those who object to state endorsements of Christmas are people who themselves CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS.

The suggestion that anyone on earth wants to eliminate Christmas from anywhere but the government is ridiculous. Your entire premise is misbegotten and disingenuous. There is some public conflict about what is or is not appropriate in state institutions. Honorable people can disagree about that. It does not represent a "war on Christmas" and that phrase was not concocted to refer to technical Establishment battles anyway but represented a posture that individual Christians were being attacked if Walmart had a "Holiday Sale" or if someone said "Happy Holidays" to them (That's not an exaggeration. Bill O'reilly lliterally and forcefully made the claim that saying "Happy Holidays" was "offensive to Christians").

O'Reilly and Gibson also tried to bolster their persecution fable by citing several bogus cases of Christians being assaulted by those dirty "secularists" (who are those people, by the way? I've never seen one). I'm sure if you scour the country, you can find some examples of public schools misunderstanding the law or some parent somewhere bringing an unwarranted lawsuit. That hardly means there;s a trend or a "war" or anything for Christians to worry about. The ACLU is there for you if your religious rights are ever infringed.

[Bricker]

I disagree with your disagreement.

Well, I disag... ah, you get the idea. :)


Instead, there is a general, population driven, secularization of the country that has resulted in a turbulent situation: people who recognize that this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country attempt to set new boundaries where everyone will feel welcome to participate in all of society while a small coterie of people who want this to be a 100% Christian nation (regardless of population) scream loudly that their hegemony is being wrested from them.

Let's say your characterization is 100% correct.

People who recognize this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country are seeking to reduce the influence Christian symbols have. I am contending that one of the weapons used in this turbulent situation is the threat of litigation -- and becuase of the costs of litigation, it's a potent weapon. So why is wrong to call it a war on Christmas?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Can you cite the claim that the principal told the parents that this was the policy? If so, can you cite the claim that this is significant? According to the cites I have provided, the PTA (not the principal) asked for white napkins in keeping with a snowy theme. This is no more pernicious to my eyes than if the PTA asked for pastel colors for a Spring dance and asked parents not to provide crimson decorations.

I just don't think there's any there there. Most likely, it seems to me, some parents eager for a fight misconstrued the PTA's innocent color recommendations as a deadly attack on God. This is like the war that dandelions wage on the Green Hornet.

Daniel
I think you're probably spot on. That whole story sounds like a load to me as well.

[Bricker]

I'm confused. If this is "already repudiated" then how does it still qualify as an example?

The Allies won World War II. It still qualifies as a war, however. The mere fact that after costly litigation was undertaken, the correct result was achieved, does not mean that the fight never happened.

That consititutes a war? I wouldn't even call that a minor skirmish.

That, alone, is EXACTLY a minor skirmish. In the aggregate, these sorts of events are a war.


Can we have a cite that explains the full context? I find it doubtful that a state government could muzzle employees thusly.

Sure. Hang on.

[Jackmannii]

And because this method of change is contentious, and involves adversarial court action or the threat of it, "War" is appropriate.Since threads inGreat Debates are frequently contentious and may bring up the advisability of legal action, would you propose we change the name to the War Forum? And what do you suggest for uniforms and standard weapons*?


Or maybe we could just drop this silly, inappropriate, inapposite and inane use of the term "War" altogether.



*I have a four-day old doughnut on my desk that has hardened into a menacing consistency and might have potential as a projectile, if it comes to that.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well, I disag... ah, you get the idea. :)



Let's say your characterization is 100% correct.

People who recognize this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country are seeking to reduce the influence Christian symbols have. I am contending that one of the weapons used in this turbulent situation is the threat of litigation -- and becuase of the costs of litigation, it's a potent weapon. So why is wrong to call it a war on Christmas?
Because it's not an attack on Christmas, it's a defense of the Constitution.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

So why is wrong to call it a war on Christmas?
Frankly, the Christian Right's war on sex seems far more harmful to me, wouldn't you agree? If trying to rprevent government resources from going to promote a religious holiday counts as a war on Christmas, then trying to prevent network television from showing breasts surely counts as a war on sex.

It's a very silly term.

Daniel

[Zakalwe]

People who recognize this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country are seeking to reduce the influence Christian symbols have. I am contending that one of the weapons used in this turbulent situation is the threat of litigation -- and becuase of the costs of litigation, it's a potent weapon.Working on the assumption that despite appearances, I'm not actually on your ignore list.

I think it would be better phrased as "People who recognize this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country are seeking stricter enforcement of the 1st Amendment regarding the government sponsoring or sanctioning the influence of Christian symbols." Given this, what weapon other than threatened or actual litigation do they have? Note, I asked the same question in post #36 and never received a response.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Frankly, the Christian Right's war on sex seems far more harmful to me, wouldn't you agree? If trying to rprevent government resources from going to promote a religious holiday counts as a war on Christmas, then trying to prevent network television from showing breasts surely counts as a war on sex.

It's a very silly term.

Daniel
Why stop at calling it a "war?" Since we're apparently allowed to redefine terms in any manner we feel like, why don't we call it, "The Holocaust On Boobies?"

We should start by defining our terms. By "holocaust," I just mean any attempt to keep boobies off of saturday morning TV. If we can agree that such attempts exist then we can agree that there is indeed a Holocaust on Boobies going on in this country.

[Bricker]

Can you cite the claim that the principal told the parents that this was the policy?

Yes: (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=14553) The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Sherman charged that the district had engaged in "unconstitutional and illegal actions," ranging from prohibiting candy canes and pencils with religious messages to banning red-and-green napkins at holiday parties.

Here: (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19738)
"They asked [parents] to bring white napkins, white paper plates and white icing," he said. "… Then they said, 'All other items shouldn't be brought because it would violate the school policy against distribution of things without school approval."

[Bricker]

The interview with the parents appears in John Gibson's book, and is not available on-line. However, it supports the allegations in the lawsuit, and specifically recounts a meeting between the parents that would become the plaintiffs and the principal in which the principal told them no red and green napkins or plates would be permitted, as a matter of school policy.

[Gadarene]

My oh my, Bricker, if I could take as true all the allegations brought in all the complaints I see filed... (Which is another reason why your "What if I could show you six actions filed in court against Christmas" thing is meaningless. The kinds of stupid-ass lawsuits that are brought and thrown out every day beggars the imagination.)

Also, I'd still love a response to my post on the (now) previous page. Thanks! :)

[Gadarene]

The interview with the parents appears in John Gibson's book, and is not available on-line.

I just love the fact that you (apparently) own John Gibson's book. That really tickles me.

[Bricker]

Working on the assumption that despite appearances, I'm not actually on your ignore list.

I think it would be better phrased as "People who recognize this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country are seeking stricter enforcement of the 1st Amendment regarding the government sponsoring or sanctioning the influence of Christian symbols." Given this, what weapon other than threatened or actual litigation do they have? Note, I asked the same question in post #36 and never received a response.

That's a perfectly fine weapon to use.... in a war against Christmas. Certainly you may call it "seeking stricter enforcement of the 1st amendment," and that would not be wrong.... just as it's not wrong to call a person "pro-choice" even though one side of the debate might prefer "pro-abortion" or even "pro-baby-killing."

[ElvisL1ves]

the principal told them no red and green napkins or plates would be permitted, as a matter of school policy.And that's what you call a "war".

This isn't even worth Pitting.

[tomndebb]

People who recognize this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country are seeking to reduce the influence Christian symbols have. I am contending that one of the weapons used in this turbulent situation is the threat of litigation -- and becuase of the costs of litigation, it's a potent weapon. So why is wrong to call it a war on Christmas? Because all of the litigation has been aimed at specific entanglement of government and religion and has not been directed against any other Christmas displays that were outside the realm of government? And because they have been directed against all governmental entanglement with religion (prayers in school, Ten Commandments on courtroom walls, teaching of religious beliefs in biology classes, etc.) and not directed toward Christmas, specifically?

Theere is no war and if you still insist on calling it a war it is not directed against Christmas.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Yes: (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=14553)

Here: (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19738)
Bricker, I asked for a cite that the principal had said any such thing. As near as I can tell, neither of your cites qualify. This is important because there's a difference between something being asked by the PTA and being asked by the principal: the former is not, as near as I know, a government employee.

If the principal told them, for example, that the party was a PTA affair and that private groups holding events on school grounds could determine teh color scheme for their events, the principal again acted in an appropriate manner.

That's why I want to see something specifically citing what the principal told them.

Daniel

[Bricker]

My oh my, Bricker, if I could take as true all the allegations brought in all the complaints I see filed... (Which is another reason why your "What if I could show you six actions filed in court against Christmas" thing is meaningless. The kinds of stupid-ass lawsuits that are brought and thrown out every day beggars the imagination.)

Also, I'd still love a response to my post on the (now) previous page. Thanks! :)

What reason have you to believe that the allegations are NOT true? The school district has now clarified its policy; they contend that the policy was never as the parents describe but they do NOT contend that the parents' version of the meeting with the principal is wrong.

[Gadarene]

Bricker:
That's a perfectly fine weapon to use.... in a war against Christmas.

So if someone (a) is a practicing Christian, (b) celebrates both the secular and religious aspects of the Christmas holiday, and (c) supports (or initiates!) a lawsuit to force a city to, say, remove a giant creche from the lobby of City Hall, then that person is perforce engaging in a war against Christmas? Wow.

[Gadarene]

Bricker:
What reason have you to believe that the allegations are NOT true? The school district has now clarified its policy; they contend that the policy was never as the parents describe but they do NOT contend that the parents' version of the meeting with the principal is wrong.

:confused: So if they deny that the policy was ever as the parents describe, on the strength of what authority was the principal allegedly speaking in the meeting? Anyway, I've got no particular reason to believe the allegations are not true. I just know better than to take at face value the claims alleged in a complaint, especially if they don't quite pass the smell test.

[Zakalwe]

That's a perfectly fine weapon to use.... in a war against Christmas. Certainly you may call it "seeking stricter enforcement of the 1st amendment," and that would not be wrong.... just as it's not wrong to call a person "pro-choice" even though one side of the debate might prefer "pro-abortion" or even "pro-baby-killing."See tomndebb's reply. He said it better than I can.

[MMI]

With the current threshold established by Bricker of a dozen not-necessarily connected actions or threatened actions to determine whether or not a "war" is in progress, I think we could probably establish that there is a "war for Christian supremacy" and a "war for non-Christian exclusion" going on in the public sphere.

(I

[Bricker]

That's why I want to see something specifically citing what the principal told them.


6.467. PISD has recently sent parents of PISD students a letter that for the
December 17, 2004 Party “contributions” be limited “to the approved
items listed below.” The restrictions specially refer to “white plates,”
“white paper napkins,” and “white ready to spread frosting.” (emphasis
added). Christmas colors red and green are banned from the party because
of their religious significance and because they symbolize the Christian
religion. The PISD restrictions prohibit gifts from being distributed
between students because gifts are not on the “approved” list. The
restrictions specifically refer to the PISD “policy on distribution of school
material and non school materials.”

From here. (http://www.libertylegal.org/pdfs/Plano%20Case.pdf)

[Bricker]

Bricker:


:confused: So if they deny that the policy was ever as the parents describe, on the strength of what authority was the principal allegedly speaking in the meeting? Anyway, I've got no particular reason to believe the allegations are not true. I just know better than to take at face value the claims alleged in a complaint, especially if they don't quite pass the smell test.

Well, since the lawsuit claims to attach the letter in which those restrictions were promulgated as an exhibit (Exhibit 129), I think it would be rather bold of them to make a claim about what the letter said, claim the letter was attached as an exhibit, AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT. Wouldn't it?

Or is that a tactic you've seen a lot?

[Gadarene]

Christmas colors red and green are banned from the party because
of their religious significance and because they symbolize the Christian
religion.

Again, this -- the pertinent part of your quote -- is utterly conclusory. Requiring white napkins does not give rise to the twin inferences that (1) red and green were specifically disfavored (2) because of their religious and Christian significance.

[Bricker]

Bricker:


So if someone (a) is a practicing Christian, (b) celebrates both the secular and religious aspects of the Christmas holiday, and (c) supports (or initiates!) a lawsuit to force a city to, say, remove a giant creche from the lobby of City Hall, then that person is perforce engaging in a war against Christmas? Wow.

Yes.

Absolutely yes.

[Gadarene]

Well, since the lawsuit claims to attach the letter in which those restrictions were promulgated as an exhibit (Exhibit 129), I think it would be rather bold of them to make a claim about what the letter said, claim the letter was attached as an exhibit, AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT. Wouldn't it?

This letter, it's from the principal recounting the substance of his conversation with the parents?

(How did we get sidetracked into the stupid specifics of the Plano case when there are so many more substantive objections to your ludicrous line of reasoning?)

[Bricker]

Because all of the litigation has been aimed at specific entanglement of government and religion and has not been directed against any other Christmas displays that were outside the realm of government? And because they have been directed against all governmental entanglement with religion (prayers in school, Ten Commandments on courtroom walls, teaching of religious beliefs in biology classes, etc.) and not directed toward Christmas, specifically?

Theere is no war and if you still insist on calling it a war it is not directed against Christmas.

Litigation is a tactic that has - of course - been reserved for attacks in the war against governmental involvement.

However, when a major retailer instructs its employees to NOT say "Merry Christmas," that's another tactic, not involving government, but a part of the war I'm describing.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

From here. (http://www.libertylegal.org/pdfs/Plano%20Case.pdf)
This link just goes to the parents' complaint. You can't use the allegations to substantiate themselves. How about a copy of the letter?

It sounds like the candy canes contained a proselytizing message. What's inappropriate about disallowing that kind of harrassment of other students?

Even if there is a case here (which I doubt), it still only amounts to one case of one school not being clear about the law. Is it your position that every memeber of that school administration hates Christmas and wants to get rid of it? Do you believe they're hostile to Christmas as a holiday at all? I'm willing to bet that most or all of them celebrate Christmas themselves. What do you think?

Oh wait...I get it...you're going to say they were afraid of a lawsuit. Well, they got sued anyway, didn't they? So it turns out persecuted Christians have the same ability to use litigation as a means to pressure or intimidate schools into do what they want as the dirty secularists do. Maybe sometimes they'll even be right. In those cases you should be thankful that the ACLU will be there for them.

Isn't it fortunate that we have such a great legal system in place to resolve these kinds of disputes?

[Zakalwe]

Well, since the lawsuit claims to attach the letter in which those restrictions were promulgated as an exhibit (Exhibit 129), I think it would be rather bold of them to make a claim about what the letter said, claim the letter was attached as an exhibit, AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT. Wouldn't it? Any chance we could see a copy of Exhibit 129 and then judge for ourselves what it does or doesn't say?

[sqweels]

The very trend of "winter party" is not required by any law or case. No Constitutional offense happens if a school district decides to call their event a Christmas party.

BUT - when a school district, BELIEVING that "Christmas party" makes them vulnerable to litigation, chooses to rename their event to "winter party," then what I am complaining of has occurred.

You are complaining of a broad-based movement trying to eradicate the religious aspects of throughout society. A secular school choosing a secular theme for a party hardly amounts to such a threat. Christmas and Christianity do not live or die by how Christmas is observed in the public schools. Most let out days before Christmas anyway. Homes and churches are the key venues for celebrating Christmas. Unless you can show that the secularation of Christmas is not confined to government-run venues, you have no case. (As for businesses, it's up to the owner to decide how religious their public face should be, as any good conservative should agree.)

[ElvisL1ves]

(How did we get sidetracked into the stupid specifics of the Plano case when there are so many more substantive objections to your ludicrous line of reasoning?)Because that's the only substantiation he's offering.

If there's been a more absurd OP in GD lately, I can't think of it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Litigation is a tactic that has - of course - been reserved for attacks in the war against governmental involvement.

However, when a major retailer instructs its employees to NOT say "Merry Christmas," that's another tactic, not involving government, but a part of the war I'm describing.
No, it's a private business owner exercising his right to run his business how he wants to. Employees are being paid to use whatever language their employers want them to use. If it's their job to interact with patrons, then they are being paid to represent that business, not themselves. They serve as proxies for the owners. They aren't allowed to say "fuck you" either. Does that infringe their first amendment rights? A business has a right to present itself in whatever manner it believes will be the most healthy for its sales. If a privately owned business believes that certain kinds of language used by employees will be offensive to its patrons then it has every right to restrict that language. The motive is not to "attack Christmas" but to make more money.

[the PC apeman]

Bricker, more than the pro-choice vs. pro-death battle for language, what you're describing here sounds more like a war on the establishment clause and/or a war on religious neutrality. The PISD and whatever major retailer are the defenders here. It's the Christmasians doing the attacking.

How do we know that the PISD and the retailer aren't expressing genuine desire for religious equality rather than fear of litigation?

[ElvisL1ves]

Litigation is a tactic that has - of course - been reserved for attacks in the war against governmental involvement. Which could also be described as "defense of the principles enshrined in the Constitution", right? Does the Constitution mean what it says and must be followed whether you like it or not, as you constantly claim, or is that concept to be applied only when you find it convenient and when it doesn't create a conflict with your own particular brand of faith or political ideology? Your refusal to address substance is not helping you at all, you must realize.

[Bricker]

This letter, it's from the principal recounting the substance of his conversation with the parents?

No. The conversation with the principal was subsequent to the letter. That is, the letter lays out what purports to be the school district's policy. After receiving it, the parents asked for a meeting with the principal, and during that meeting, he affirmed that the policy was as stated.


(How did we get sidetracked into the stupid specifics of the Plano case when there are so many more substantive objections to your ludicrous line of reasoning?)

Gee, I don't know. I wasn't in favor of providing specific examples just yet, for PRECISELY this reason. YOU urged me to provide specifics.

[Bricker]

This link just goes to the parents' complaint. You can't use the allegations to substantiate themselves. How about a copy of the letter?

The complaint is signed by an attorney. While I grant that allegations of a factual nature are not proven by their mere appearance in a complaint - else why would we have trials? - I don't believe I have ever heard of a complaint that quotes a letter incorrectly and then provides the letter as an attachment.


It sounds like the candy canes contained a proselytizing message. What's inappropriate about disallowing that kind of harrassment of other students?


*sigh*

My claim is that it happened. Your response says, "OK, it happened, but it was reasonable." Fine. It's a Just War on Christmas, in your view. I'm just trying to show the war exists, not whether it's right or wrong.

[Bricker]

Even if there is a case here (which I doubt), it still only amounts to one case of one school not being clear about the law. Is it your position that every memeber of that school administration hates Christmas and wants to get rid of it? Do you believe they're hostile to Christmas as a holiday at all? I'm willing to bet that most or all of them celebrate Christmas themselves. What do you think?


Well, that's what examples are. Each example is one case.

I'm not claiming that any of the other things you said above.

[sqweels]

The Plano case case certainly makes a mountain out of a molehill, but in the light of the brouhaha, how goes the effort to ban red and green decorations from all public schools? I suspect that this year the kids can bring all the red and green napkins they like.

Given the amount of ink spilled on this case, it's curious that the focus has remained on napkins with no clarification as to other red and green decorations, such as wreaths, are prohibited at school. If they are, the point is not that it's anti-religious, but that it's stupid. Christmahanukwanzturnaliyulestice is a multi-faceted holiday with many secular aspects that the religious aspects can be plugged into, or not, depending on the individual.

[Bricker]

Oh wait...I get it...you're going to say they were afraid of a lawsuit. Well, they got sued anyway, didn't they? So it turns out persecuted Christians have the same ability to use litigation as a means to pressure or intimidate schools into do what they want as the dirty secularists do. Maybe sometimes they'll even be right. In those cases you should be thankful that the ACLU will be there for them.

Isn't it fortunate that we have such a great legal system in place to resolve these kinds of disputes?

Yes. It turns out that both sides in the war on Christmas have access to litigation.

That doesn't show there isn't a war on Christmas. It just shows that both sides can fight. Indeed, I don't think Christmas is in much danger. For every case of attack, there are probably ten public schools quietly having Christmas parties, with red and green napkins, and singing "Silent Night" at their concerts. But that doesn't erase the cases I'm discussing.

[Gadarene]

Can you address my post #87 please, Bricker? Thanks.

[Ludovic]

The motive is not to "attack Christmas" but to make more money.I'd like to see an answer to this. Corporations hardly ever make a decision based on morality, much less as a conscious (if not concerted) part of a "war on Christmas" :rolleyes:

You could similarly claim that corporations are waging a "war on good taste" by refusing to play decent music on the radio, and with more evidence.

[Gadarene]

For every case of attack, there are probably ten public schools quietly having Christmas parties, with red and green napkins, and singing "Silent Night" at their concerts.

Ten? Ten??? What world are you living in?

[Bricker]

The Plano case case certainly makes a mountain out of a molehill, but in the light of the brouhaha, how goes the effort to ban red and green decorations from all public schools? I suspect that this year the kids can bring all the red and green napkins they like.

Yes, they can. So in this particular battle of the war on Christmas, Christmas emerges the winner.

Of course, in order to win this battle, money had to be expended on litigation.

[Bricker]

Gladly. First, though, I wanted to thank you for addressing the posts to which I directed your attention, and to point out that you missed CJJ* in Post #17. :)

No, I didn't. My post #33 replies to his post #17.

[the PC apeman]

Yes, they can. So in this particular battle of the war on Christmas, Christmas emerges the winner.

Of course, in order to win this battle, money had to be expended on litigation.

Yes, the Christmasians bought a victory in the war to force Christmas on the unwilling.

[Steve MB]

Consider "guerilla warfare." It's well understood that this phrase refers to irregular warfare conducted by independent units carrying out harassment and sabotage. There are no armies, no generals
There most certainly are generals (or some equivalent source of central direction) -- if not, it's not "guerrilla warfare", it's just independent acts of armed criminality.

[Steve MB]

Answered above. See "guerilla warfare."
Nope, not answered above, until you can supply a definition of "guerilla warfare" that 1)distinguishes it from simple armed criminality and 2)does not include some form of centralized direction.

[Zakalwe]

The complaint is signed by an attorney. While I grant that allegations of a factual nature are not proven by their mere appearance in a complaint - else why would we have trials? - I don't believe I have ever heard of a complaint that quotes a letter incorrectly and then provides the letter as an attachment.Interesting leap there, counselor.
PISD has recently sent parents of PISD students a letter that for the
December 17, 2004 Party “contributions” be limited “to the approved items listed below.” The restrictions specially refer to “white plates,” “white paper napkins,” and “white ready to spread frosting.” (emphasis added). Christmas colors red and green are banned from the party because of their religious significance and because they symbolize the Christian religion. The PISD restrictions prohibit gifts from being distributed between students because gifts are not on the “approved” list. The
restrictions specifically refer to the PISD “policy on distribution of school material and non school materials.” (A copy of the letter sent to parents by the PISD is attached as Exhibit 129.) Please note that the part about red and green being banned because they are Christmas colors is *not* in quotes and thus probably doesn't actually appear in the letter itself. In fact, very little of the letter is quoted. I would say that the school limited items to the approved list, left red & green napkins off of the approved list, and the lawyer for the plaintiffs is alleging some anti-Christmas bias. Until you produce a copy of the letter, we have no way of knowing, do we?

It's a Just War on Christmas, in your view. I'm just trying to show the war exists, not whether it's right or wrong.No it's not. It's a Just Defense of SOCAS. Due to Christmas' high profile (and the rabid reactionary tactics of a group of self-professed "Christians"), you tend to hear about it a lot more during the winter season. That doesn't make it a War on Christmas any more than the conflict in Iraq was a War on March.

[black rabbit]

I was unaware that "public sphere" had a technical meaning in the world of critical theory. I was using the phrase simply to mean: in public. It was intended to encompass public schools, federal, state, and local government action, and privately owned businesses that are "places of public accomodation" within the meaning of civil rights laws.


Thank you.

Given your definitions, then, there is no "War on Christmas."

I reject your assertion that attempts to make the government religiously neutral, on their own, constitute an attack against Christmas.

Every example that's been provided so far involves government endorsement of Christianity in some way or another, so it falls within the scope of the Christian Crusade Against the First Amendment.

You have been unable to provide any evidence that anyone in a non-government capacity has been prevented from celebrating Christmas.

Ergo, you're wrong.

If somebody wants to start a thread asking about the Republican War Against Homosexuals, they'd have a better shot at making their point.

[Bricker]

...whether there's a substantive difference (assertions of centralized coordination notwithstanding) between what seem to be "defensive" challenges to the War on Christmas -- that is, the desire to preserve existing town manger scenes or other examples of traditional or status quo holiday celebrations in the face of secular attack -- and "offensive" challenges, such as efforts to squelch the use of the phrase "Happy Holidays," which has a specific and discrete meaning that isn't simply interchangeable with "Merry Christmas."

I see the distinction, and I think there's a difference between "offense" and "defense" here. But your specific example is "defense" - if a store forbids "Merry Christmas," then THAT is the attack, and the effort to replace "Happy Holidays" is the defensive move.

[Steve MB]

I disagree with your disagreement. While there are often cases of semi-independent cells that engage in various actions, I can think of no event that has been called a guerilla war that did not involve an overall guided movement. Truly autonomous groups all attacking a government are more likely to be described as the actions of individual warlords and each will be considered a separate guerilla war.
Yes, precisely, with the caveat that even counting the independent warlords as leaders of a separate guerilla war presumes that each is in command of more than the bunch of guys with guns who are within earshot at the moment.

[Bricker]

You have been unable to provide any evidence that anyone in a non-government capacity has been prevented from celebrating Christmas.

Ergo, you're wrong.


How does this follow? The Japanese lost World War II. They did not succeed in their goals. Nonetheless, World War II was clearly a war.

How does the fact that no one has been prevented from celebrating Christmas mean that there is no war on Christmas? All it means is that, thus far, the war has not been successful.

In the Plano case, the restrictions imposed were NOT required by the Constitution. After the lawsuit was filed, the school reversed its policy. That's a battle, with a win for the good guys. In the war.

[tomndebb]

However, when a major retailer instructs its employees to NOT say "Merry Christmas," that's another tactic, not involving government, but a part of the war I'm describing. Are you serious?
Do you actually believe this?

Consider just a few points:
- The movement to use Happy Holidays originated well over 30 years ago among retailers (and local TV stations) as an effort to be more inclusive of the patrons and viewers as they recognized that the country was becoming more diverse and they wanted to refrain from excluding non-Christians in their effort to sell merchandise in December. (Since I was actually working the floor of retailers specializing in Christmas sales from 1975 through 1978, I will note that I did not once see an inter-office instruction to avoid Christmas, although I saw several memoes indicating that the use of Happy Holidays would be more likely to avoid alientating Jewish and Muslim customers.)
- The orders to use Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas generally originated in those bastions of Left-wing Hippie Liberalism, the Marketing and Sales departments.
- The offending merchants have included such notable entities as Wal*Mart (headquartered in the midst of the Bible Belt and notorious for such Liberal attacks on America as the refusal to sell music that had not been censored for language and content as well as its deliberate projection into the Christian merchandise market (http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/15/cz_cc_0915wmt.html)).

So to discover this great war, we have to posit a grand conspiracy of Liberal secular lawyers and Conservative Christian merchants, all working in concert over the preceding 30 to 40 years, operating in such secrecy that not one person on the inside has had the courage to expose them with a memo of the deliberations of their cabal.

Sorry. I'm not buying it. You are putting together disparate actions of diverse groups to claim a phenomenon that is simply not there.

[Gadarene]

I see the distinction, and I think there's a difference between "offense" and "defense" here. But your specific example is "defense" - if a store forbids "Merry Christmas," then THAT is the attack, and the effort to replace "Happy Holidays" is the defensive move.

...But when Bill O'Reilly claims to be offended by hearing store clerks say "Happy Holidays" without a showing that it's store policy to say Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas, that isn't "defense," it's "offense." Correct?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

My claim is that it happened. Your response says, "OK, it happened, but it was reasonable." Fine. It's a Just War on Christmas, in your view. I'm just trying to show the war exists, not whether it's right or wrong.
This is still a gross mistatement of the issue. This is not a conflict about Christmas per se but about what sort of religious expression is permissable in public schools. The specific holiday of Christmas is both incidental and immaterial to what the conflict is really about.

I would also point out that the "attackers" in this case are the Christians. The school is only defending itself.

Have you been able to think of any examples of privately owned businesses being pressured not to celebrate Christmas?

[Bricker]

Until you produce a copy of the letter, we have no way of knowing, do we?

Well, I also have the interview conducted by Gibson of the plaintiffs. In that interview - which appears in his book, and thus I can't give you a clickable cite - the specific allegation is made.

Surely that is enough to create a prima facie case for the truth of the matter. You can find a cite for the school officials changing their policy; I'm not aware of anyone specifically denying this allegation.

[Bricker]

...But when Bill O'Reilly claims to be offended by hearing store clerks say "Happy Holidays" without a showing that it's store policy to say Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas, that isn't "defense," it's "offense." Correct?

Absolutely.

[Gadarene]

Bricker:
You can find a cite for the school officials changing their policy; I'm not aware of anyone specifically denying this allegation.

I thought you said that the school officials denied that their policy was as described in the complaint.

[Steve MB]

I think it would be better phrased as "People who recognize this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country are seeking stricter enforcement of the 1st Amendment regarding the government sponsoring or sanctioning the influence of Christian symbols."
OK. To demonstrate that what is going on is not what Zakalwe describes above, but rather is an insidious "war on Christmas", calls for a half-dozen cites of lawsuits not directed at a government entity.

The goalpost is ready for your kick, Bricker....

[Bricker]

I'd like to see an answer to this. Corporations hardly ever make a decision based on morality, much less as a conscious (if not concerted) part of a "war on Christmas" :rolleyes:

I'm amazed that we're four pages into the thread, and people are still spending energy trying to defeat my argument that the war on Christmas is a coordinated, concerted effort.

When I never once made such an argument.

Corporations may well decide to say "Happy Holidays" in an effort to appease the vocal minority of people that complain about "Merry Christmas". If they do, that's part of the war on Christmas. Or they may decide to use "Happy Holidays" as a result of their own marketing decision that the latter is more effective. If they reach the decision that way, they are not part of the phenomenon I'm describing.

[the PC apeman]

Corporations may well decide to say "Happy Holidays" in an effort to appease the vocal minority of people that complain about "Merry Christmas". If they do, that's part of the war on Christmas. Or they may decide to use "Happy Holidays" as a result of their own marketing decision that the latter is more effective. If they reach the decision that way, they are not part of the phenomenon I'm describing.
Can you point to any instances of the former? If not, then there is no war on Christmas - at least not on this front.

[Gadarene]

Damn.

[black rabbit]

How does this follow? The Japanese lost World War II. They did not succeed in their goals. Nonetheless, World War II was clearly a war.

How does the fact that no one has been prevented from celebrating Christmas mean that there is no war on Christmas? All it means is that, thus far, the war has not been successful.


Pedantic, but true.

Change my statement to:

You have been unable to provide any evidence that anybody is attempting to prevent anyone from celebrating Christmas in a non-government capacity.


In the Plano case, the restrictions imposed were NOT required by the Constitution. After the lawsuit was filed, the school reversed its policy. That's a battle, with a win for the good guys. In the war.

The matter still centered on interpretation of the Establishment Clause, and the school's concerns, albeit unfounded, about violating it. It's a battle in a war that only exists in the fevered imaginings of uninformed and ignorant.

You're still wrong.

[Steve MB]

I'm amazed that we're four pages into the thread, and people are still spending energy trying to defeat my argument that the war on Christmas is a coordinated, concerted effort.

When I never once made such an argument.
Oh, please. People are not letting you get away with smuggling that assertion in through your choice of words ("war") and then refusing to stand behind its implications.

[Miller]

That's a perfectly fine weapon to use.... in a war against Christmas. Certainly you may call it "seeking stricter enforcement of the 1st amendment," and that would not be wrong.... just as it's not wrong to call a person "pro-choice" even though one side of the debate might prefer "pro-abortion" or even "pro-baby-killing."

Do you think the best way to discuss this issue is to slap labels on both sides that are as divisive and inaccurate as the ones we've been saddled with in the abortion debate? If not, do you object to having yourself termed a participant in the War on the First Ammendment?

That doesn't show there isn't a war on Christmas. It just shows that both sides can fight. Indeed, I don't think Christmas is in much danger. For every case of attack, there are probably ten public schools quietly having Christmas parties, with red and green napkins, and singing "Silent Night" at their concerts. But that doesn't erase the cases I'm discussing.

By that logic, the Oklahoma City bombing was evidence that the US was in the grips of a second civil war in 1995.

[Digital Stimulus]

I'm amazed that we're four pages into the thread, and people are still spending energy trying to defeat my argument that the war on Christmas is a coordinated, concerted effort.
Indeed. And I'm amazed that you still haven't bounded the playing field, of which the above is a direct consequence. At any rate, I'm unsubscribing from this thread, as it's wasted enough of my time already.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I see the distinction, and I think there's a difference between "offense" and "defense" here. But your specific example is "defense" - if a store forbids "Merry Christmas," then THAT is the attack, and the effort to replace "Happy Holidays" is the defensive move.
I wasn't aware that stores had the power to "forbid 'Merry Christmas.'"

I suppose what you're actually referring to is instances when businesses voluntarily exercise their own rights to represent theimselves however they see fit. Do you believe that employers have no right to set policies on how employess should interact with customers? Are you seriously suggesting that a business which chooses voluntarily to use the term "Holidays" instead of "Christmas" in its advertising and store displays is attacking Christmas.

If I tell you "Happy Holidays" on a message board am I attacking Christmas? Are you offended? Are you a victim? Are we "at war?"

What's the difference between me doing it or Wal-Mart doing it?

[black rabbit]

I know for a fact that you can get food out of the vending machines at the Cincinnati Public Library between sunup and sundown during Ramadan.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the librarians are waging a War on Islam.

[Bricker]

I suppose what you're actually referring to is instances when businesses voluntarily exercise their own rights to represent theimselves however they see fit. Do you believe that employers have no right to set policies on how employess should interact with customers? Are you seriously suggesting that a business which chooses voluntarily to use the term "Holidays" instead of "Christmas" in its advertising and store displays is attacking Christmas.

A hypothetical: if a store reaches the "Happy Holidays" decision because a group threatens a boycott if they do not, I'd say that's a "War on Christmas" event. If a store reaches that decision as an ordinary exercise of marketing, then it's not emblematic of a "War on Christmas."

Do you see the distinction?

[Bricker]

I know for a fact that you can get food out of the vending machines at the Cincinnati Public Library between sunup and sundown during Ramadan.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the librarians are waging a War on Islam.

Not at all.

I'm very surprised at this attempt at analogy. It shows a complete disregard for almost everything in this thread.

Now, if vending machines that dispensed food during Ramadan were placed in an area that had, up til then, celebrated Ramadan, with the motive to disrupt or vitiate the celebration of Ramadan... then, yes, I'd say you were making the case for a "War on Ramadan."

[DoctorJ]

I think "War on Christmas" implies a concerted effort, or at least common goals. What we really have here among Gibson and O'Reilly's examples are three different things.

--Legitimate attempts to curb legitimate (or at least arguably legitimate) establishment clause violations.
--Retailers and other businesspeople who see no reason to exclude anyone from the year-end spending orgy, and thus want to be as inclusive as possible.
--School administrators who have no understanding of the law and who have inflated fears of lawsuits (which are not helped by reactionary books stating that liberals are at war against Christmas) and thus go too far in prohibiting religious expression.

Three groups, three clearly different goals. How on Earth do these add up to a "Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday" (as the book's subtitle claims)?

The book's description at Amazon says:
Traditionalists get upset when they’re told—more and more these days—that celebrating Christmas in any public way is a violation of church and state separation. That is certainly not what the founders intended when they wrote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
They should get upset when they're told that, because it isn't true. Of course, the only people telling them that are the Bill O'Reillys and the Pat Robertsons and the John Gibsons. Gibson and the people who buy his claptrap are taking multiple unrelated goals, combining them into one colossal strawman of a position, and applying it to the left as a whole (or at least a substantial enough portion of the left to make a difference).

So if by "there is a War on Christmas" you actually mean "there are some people in America who for various reasons wish to tone down certain exclusively Christian religious expressions during what most Americans, regardless of religion, have come to accept as a season of celebration", then fine, call it what you want. You have to accept, though, that 1.) that's a pretty silly thing to call it, and 2.) that is far from what Gibson and his ilk are claiming is happening.

[Zakalwe]

A hypothetical: if a store reaches the "Happy Holidays" decision because a group threatens a boycott if they do not, I'd say that's a "War on Christmas" event. If a store reaches that decision as an ordinary exercise of marketing, then it's not emblematic of a "War on Christmas."

Do you see the distinction?I'm willing to grant this distinction for the sake of moving this along. Fine. Now, please prove that any store has done so. Further, please demonstrate why this is any more or less concern-worthy than the *numerous* instances of the Crazy Christian Crusaders threatening stores for the purpose of forcing them to endorse the Christian religion via "Merry Christmas".

[DoctorJ]

While I was writing my previous post, Bricker said:
I'm amazed that we're four pages into the thread, and people are still spending energy trying to defeat my argument that the war on Christmas is a coordinated, concerted effort.

When I never once made such an argument.
Then calling it a "War on Christmas" is pretty silly, as are your assertions from a book that claims this all to be part of a "liberal plot".

[DoctorJ]

Consider other "wars" that we've waged against phenomena--the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism. The purpose of calling these efforts "wars" was to imply a coordinated, concerted effort to eradicate the problems.

Certainly, any war we declare as a country against another country is a coordinated, concerted effort.

If this is what you are defining as a "War on Christmas", I believe that an argument can be made that there is a War On pretty damn much anything.

[sqweels]

A hypothetical: if a store reaches the "Happy Holidays" decision because a group threatens a boycott if they do not, I'd say that's a "War on Christmas" event.

Tell us more about this group. Who are they? What exactly are their goals and motivations? Have they targeted churches in any way?

[MaxTheVool]

First of all, I appreciate the fact that despite your position being (a) batshit crazy, and (b) attacked by a really large number of people, you have hung around and continued to discuss it in a calm and rational fashion.

That said...


...are not united in their desire to be rid of Christmas entirely, although I believe some of them would like just that.

You think there are people in the US, or at least people aside from the extreme and irrelevant lunatic fringe, who have a desire to be rid of Christmas entirely? Seriously?


But many others simply want to remove any tint of religious meaning from Christmas,

You believe there are people in the US, or at least people aside from the extreme and irrelevant lunatic fringe, who want to remove any tint of religious meaning from Christmas? Seriously?

And in particular, do you think that any of the people involved in the so-called War on Christmas fall into the above categories? For instance, any of the people in Plano? Or the executives of any corporations that use "Happy Holidays" as their in-store greeting?




And reasonable people may participate in guerilla warfare, too. I grant you that "War on Christmas" is a title that is designed to paint the people on one side as less reasonable than the people on the other.... just as pro-life and pro-choice are such titles.

There are a couple of huge differences, though:
(1) "Pro-life" and Pro-choice" both err in being too positive, as opposed to too negative. It's much less objectionable, and much less likely to turn reasonable debate into a hate-filled flame-fest, to describe onesself in too-glowing terms, as opposed to describing one's opponents (or their position), in too-negative terms. It's fairly silly to describe the against-legal-abortion side as "pro-life". It would be equally silly to describe the for-legal-abortion side as "pro-death". But "pro-death" would be VASTLY worse as far as engendering a climate of reasoned debate and respect.

(2) "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" kind of cancel each other out. Also, it's certainly the case that abortion IS a real and meaningful issue. It's not like abortion never used to be an issue, and then someone came up and invented a hilariously incendiary name for the pro- or anti-legalized-abortion position, and then tried to use the passions incited by that incendiary name to CREATE an issue where there wasn't one before. Anyhow, if you want to keep talking about the War on Christmas, and claim that's a fair and reasonable term, how would you feel if your position was described as the "Movement to Ass-Rape the Bill of Rights"?





Anyhow, another important point about the issue as a whole: There IS a meaningful and non-trivial question as to where exactly the line should be drawn in venues like public schools. And there are zillions of public schools, and this is a litigation-happy society. Therefore, the mere existence of lawsuits (in either direction) on this issue hardly demonstrates that there's specifically a War on Christmas. If you got a list of all lawsuits filed concerning public schools in the US in the past 5 years, sorted them by topic, and found every topic about which at least 3 or 4 lawsuits were filed, would it be in any way meaningful to say that you had discovered a WAR on anything?


Oh, and we're still waiting for a cite for your claim that the Illinois state government forbade its employees from saying "Merry Christmas".

[Diogenes the Cynic]

A hypothetical: if a store reaches the "Happy Holidays" decision because a group threatens a boycott if they do not, I'd say that's a "War on Christmas" event. If a store reaches that decision as an ordinary exercise of marketing, then it's not emblematic of a "War on Christmas."

Do you see the distinction?
I see the distinction clearly but apparently you do not.

[Nature's Call]

Nature's Call post 316 suggests that this is merely part of the on-going evolution of Christmas. That may be true. It doesn't negate the fact that people, and groups, are creating this "evolution" through use of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits. This is a change from the past. That is, I'm referring not to the change in how we celebrate Christmas, but a change in how we change the celebration of Christmas. And because this method of change is contentious, and involves adversarial court action or the threat of it, "War" is appropriate.

Would you, as a lawyer, consider the fact that divorce court cases constitute a war on marriage?. No single case, of course, but in the aggregate. Such cases are more fiercely adversarial than School Board v. The Red Green Show. Sure, the rise in the number of divorces may indicate a trend away from the once sacred institution - but a war on marriage?

Reasonable people avail themselves of the adversarial civil court system for all kinds of matters. These people, typically, would not consider themselves engaged in a war.

I agree that the word "war" can be used in the metaphorical sense without the need of literal generals and armies. But the metaphorical use must map to at least the essential elements of a real war: an intentional effort to defeat an opposing force. It is not a war when a forest encroaches into a nearby clearing by the aggregate mini-invasions of individual seeds. Even if one stretches and says the nearby clearing was "conquered" there's not enough similarity to rightly use the word "war."


Christians claim the true meaning of Christmas is centered on celebrating the birth of Christ.
This celebration traditionally is a mix of religious observance and social activities
There has been an drifting away from the religous aspects of Christmas. The focus now is more in the social activities with observance of Christ's birth becoming less and less central.
In the current state of affairs a great number of people truly and deeply celebrate Christmas with perhaps a fleeting thought towards the birth story. Athiests honestly and without contradiction celebrate Christmas.
There is a confluence of other traditions that occur within the same time as Christmas: Chanukah, Kwanzaa, New Year's, Saturnalia, etc. At one time these other celebrations (besides New Years) footnotes, rarely though of. Now they are much more prominient.
Christians feel that the relegating "true" meaning of Christmas to the backburner is a bad thing, and many feel threatened or attacked by the current state of affairs.


I hesitate to put words in your mouth, Bricker, and I do stand to be corrected. But it seems to me that thoughts along the lines of the above came first. Then you started looking for proof of the"war" and came across these various law-suits. Thus armed, you presented the impression akin to, "you know, I was thinking about these law-suits and it got me to thinking maybe a war is going on."

The Christian definition of the "true meaning" has lost significant ground, and I sympathize that Christians may not like it (I wonder if the pagans did way back when?) It is an unfair, though, to claim "war on Christmas" is a descriptive term to describe the events that cause you concern.

[Dangerosa]

Not at all.

I'm very surprised at this attempt at analogy. It shows a complete disregard for almost everything in this thread.

Now, if vending machines that dispensed food during Ramadan were placed in an area that had, up til then, celebrated Ramadan, with the motive to disrupt or vitiate the celebration of Ramadan... then, yes, I'd say you were making the case for a "War on Ramadan."

Or say, for instance, formerly having Halloween celebrations at school, and switching to "Harvest Celebrations" might be considered a "War on Halloween."

[Bricker]

Three groups, three clearly different goals. How on Earth do these add up to a "Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday" (as the book's subtitle claims)?


I am not adopting the book's premise in toto.

So if by "there is a War on Christmas" you actually mean "there are some people in America who for various reasons wish to tone down certain exclusively Christian religious expressions during what most Americans, regardless of religion, have come to accept as a season of celebration", then fine, call it what you want. You have to accept, though, that 1.) that's a pretty silly thing to call it, and 2.) that is far from what Gibson and his ilk are claiming is happening.

1. I think it's a not a neutrally-descriptive phrase, but it's no more silly than calling baby murderers "pro-choice". (Or, if you prefer, "...no more silly than calling anti-reproductive-rights fascists 'pro-life.'") In other words, it's not the first rhetoric-laden shorthand the world has ever seen.

2. True, but irrelevant to this thread.

[Nature's Call]

However, when a major retailer instructs its employees to NOT say "Merry Christmas," that's another tactic, not involving government, but a part of the war I'm describing.
Foul!

Unintended side-effects that occur while pursuing something positive does not a war make.

Store: We love all of our customers. We want them all to feel welcome in December. Ideas?
Clerk: Let's say "Happy holidays" so no one feels left out.
Store: Great idea!

I've not heard anyone saying "Hey! That store specifically said, 'Do not say Happy Chanukah!' I'm offended." If the Happy Holidays thing is part of the war on Christmas, why is it not also part of the War on Kwanzaa? Please, do not say "aggregate" again, unless you mean aggregate of nonsense.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Bricker, as I see it, angels are white; for all the information in that complaint, the PTA could have been adopting an angelic theme instead of a pagan Holly-based theme for their Christmas holiday. It is utterly ridiculous to infer from a letter asking for white napkins a hostility toward Christianity. Completely ridiculous. Your cite puts quotes around the White Napkins Requested bits but not around the No Christian Colors bits, because those bits were not in the letter. They were in the fevered imaginations of the plaintiffs, and only there.

If you want to offer a specific stronger case to establish a war on Christmas, this would be a great time to do so. But if the Plano case--in which a PTA had a party with a snowy color theme, and some parents freaked out about it--is a typical example of the "War on Christmas," I have to say that the old peace slogan has finally been answered (http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Exhibits/Track16/nobody_came.html).

Daniel

[Orbifold]

Foul!

Unintended side-effects that occur while pursuing something positive does not a war make.

Store: We love all of our customers. We want them all to feel welcome in December. Ideas?
Clerk: Let's say "Happy holidays" so no one feels left out.
Store: Great idea!

I've not heard anyone saying "Hey! That store specifically said, 'Do not say Happy Chanukah!' I'm offended." If the Happy Holidays thing is part of the war on Christmas, why is it not also part of the War on Kwanzaa? Please, do not say "aggregate" again, unless you mean aggregate of nonsense.

Don't be silly, if Bricker ever bothered to bring the question of motivation into consideration he wouldn't be able to call them "attacks". And then where would this ridiculous proposition be?

[Aholibah]

I1. I think it's a not a neutrally-descriptive phrase, but it's no more silly than calling baby murderers "pro-choice". (Or, if you prefer, "...no more silly than calling anti-reproductive-rights fascists 'pro-life.'") In other words, it's not the first rhetoric-laden shorthand the world has ever seen.

Did you miss where MaxTheVool exploded this analogy, or are you just choosing to ignore his very salient point?

"Pro-life" and Pro-choice" both err in being too positive, as opposed to too negative. It's much less objectionable, and much less likely to turn reasonable debate into a hate-filled flame-fest, to describe onesself in too-glowing terms, as opposed to describing one's opponents (or their position), in too-negative terms. It's fairly silly to describe the against-legal-abortion side as "pro-life". It would be equally silly to describe the for-legal-abortion side as "pro-death". But "pro-death" would be VASTLY worse as far as engendering a climate of reasoned debate and respect.

I know you're familiar with the term "poisoning the well." Are you really incapable of seeing that that's exactly what this particular bit of 'rhetoric-laden shorthand' accomplishes?

[MaxTheVool]

I am not adopting the book's premise in toto.
...
2. True, but irrelevant to this thread.

On the contrary, that's VERY relevant to the thread, at least the part of the thread which is discussing how appropriate it is for you to use the phrase "War on Christmas".

If your position is that you do NOT agree with the conclusions and claims made by people who are much louder and more famous and more prominent than you, but you claim that some much more limited things are true, but you want to use the same propagandistic phrase... well, that's a TERRIBLE idea. It's like saying "I disagree with the New Orleans mayor when he famously (and stupidly) said he wanted a 'chocolate New Orleans'. But I do think that in a very limited sense it's important that African-American small businesses are attracted to New Orleans. So I'll call my effort to encourage that the 'Chocolate New Orleans' initiative, and get all huffy when people don't immediately realize what I'm talking about".



OK, that's not a great analogy, but my point is that it's already silly for you to use as divisive a phrase as "The War on Christmas", and it gets even SILLIER when that phrase is being widely and vocally adopted by a bunch of assholes, but you want to use it to mean something different from what they want it to mean.

[Steve MB]

So if by "there is a War on Christmas" you actually mean "there are some people in America who for various reasons wish to tone down certain exclusively Christian religious expressions during what most Americans, regardless of religion, have come to accept as a season of celebration", then fine, call it what you want. You have to accept, though, that 1.) that's a pretty silly thing to call it, and 2.) that is far from what Gibson and his ilk are claiming is happening.
2. True, but irrelevant to this thread.
On the contrary, the gulf between a)wishing to tone down certain exclusively Christian religious expressions during what most Americans, regardless of religion, have come to accept as a season of celebration and b)orchestrating a nefarious [ OMINOUS ECHO EFFECT ] Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday [ /OMINOUS ECHO EFFECT ] is central to the issue before us (for those who came in late, that's "Is there an ongoing phenomenon that may reasonably be characterized as a 'War On Christmas'?").

[Stonebow]

Am I the only one that can see several reasons why a school would have a list of 'approved items' and why they would limit choices white? Off the top of my head:
1) dye issues (allergies)
2) gang issues (colors)
3) stops people from showing up with 'Finding Nemo' or 'Dora the Explorer' themed stuff (thematic unity)

And Bricker, you seem to keep redefining any sort of resistance (either active via lawsuit or passive via catering to population shift) to Christian hegemony as part of this 'war.' Is it your contention that Christianity is simply incompatible with a pluralistic society? Must it rule or be ruled?

[tomndebb]

Corporations may well decide to say "Happy Holidays" in an effort to appease the vocal minority of people that complain about "Merry Christmas". If they do, that's part of the war on Christmas. Or they may decide to use "Happy Holidays" as a result of their own marketing decision that the latter is more effective. If they reach the decision that way, they are not part of the phenomenon I'm describing.Based on my personal experience and lacking any genuine cases to the contrary of my experience, I would have to say that the second option is not only more likely, it is overwhelmingly more likely. I have seen no evidence that Wal*Mart, for example, ever received a single letter angrily declaring that the customer was offended by being wished "Merry Christmas." On the other hand, we know that they have been sent angry missives excoriating them for telling their clerks to say "Happy Hoildays." It seems that the only overt pressure exerted originates among the Forces To Impose Christian Hegemony On The Nation.

Do you happen to have a real life example of a merchant changing policy from "Christmas" to "Holidays" as the result of angry protests by offended customers?

[Bricker]

Foul!

Unintended side-effects that occur while pursuing something positive does not a war make.

Store: We love all of our customers. We want them all to feel welcome in December. Ideas?
Clerk: Let's say "Happy holidays" so no one feels left out.
Store: Great idea!

I've not heard anyone saying "Hey! That store specifically said, 'Do not say Happy Chanukah!' I'm offended." If the Happy Holidays thing is part of the war on Christmas, why is it not also part of the War on Kwanzaa? Please, do not say "aggregate" again, unless you mean aggregate of nonsense.

If the discussion you posit led to the policy, then, as I've said twice before in this thread, it doesn't qualify as part of a "War on Christmas."

[Bricker]

Bricker, as I see it, angels are white; for all the information in that complaint, the PTA could have been adopting an angelic theme instead of a pagan Holly-based theme for their Christmas holiday. It is utterly ridiculous to infer from a letter asking for white napkins a hostility toward Christianity. Completely ridiculous. Your cite puts quotes around the White Napkins Requested bits but not around the No Christian Colors bits, because those bits were not in the letter. They were in the fevered imaginations of the plaintiffs, and only there.

No, that's not so. The plaintiffs specifically said, in their interview with Gibson, that the principal told them the no-red-and-green decorations was intended to forbid Christmas colors.

[Bricker]

Don't be silly, if Bricker ever bothered to bring the question of motivation into consideration he wouldn't be able to call them "attacks". And then where would this ridiculous proposition be?

On the contrary, as I had said AT LEAST TWICE IN THIS THREAD ALREADY, motivation is a very valid method for distinguishing cases. Did you simply miss the posts where I said it? Or did you read them but decide to attack me like this anyway?

[Bricker]

Did you miss where MaxTheVool exploded this analogy, or are you just choosing to ignore his very salient point?



I know you're familiar with the term "poisoning the well." Are you really incapable of seeing that that's exactly what this particular bit of 'rhetoric-laden shorthand' accomplishes?

OK, that's a fair point. "Pro-choice" and "pro-life," if not exactly neutral, are, as Max suggests, positive spins for each side. However, that's only an illusory advantage. If one side is "pro-life," and they have opposition, then it's clear that the opposition is NOT pro-life. Similarly, the opponents of "pro-choice" must clearly be against choice.

In other words, both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" ALSO poison the well. I grant they do it a bit more subtly than "War on Christmas." But the difference is not of character, only degree.

[Bricker]

It's like saying "I disagree with the New Orleans mayor when he famously (and stupidly) said he wanted a 'chocolate New Orleans'. But I do think that in a very limited sense it's important that African-American small businesses are attracted to New Orleans. So I'll call my effort to encourage that the 'Chocolate New Orleans' initiative, and get all huffy when people don't immediately realize what I'm talking about".

Actually, that's a pretty strong analogy.

OK, I agree. Whatever phrase I'm going to use to describe the very real and extant phenomenon I'm talking about, I guess it CAN'T be "War on Christmas." You make an excellent point: that phrase is co-opted now.

This does not destroy my main point: what I'm talking about is real, and more pervasive each year. It's an attack on public recognition of Christmas as Christmas. It's just not useful to call it "War on Christmas."

[MaxTheVool]

OK, that's a fair point. "Pro-choice" and "pro-life," if not exactly neutral, are, as Max suggests, positive spins for each side. However, that's only an illusory advantage. If one side is "pro-life," and they have opposition, then it's clear that the opposition is NOT pro-life. Similarly, the opponents of "pro-choice" must clearly be against choice.

In other words, both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" ALSO poison the well. I grant they do it a bit more subtly than "War on Christmas." But the difference is not of character, only degree.

I think you're underestimating the difference. If I have particularly left- or right-wing views, and I form the "Patriot's Party", I am implying that everyone not in my party is not a patriot. But very few people are going to get pissed off about me forming the "Patriot's Party". However, if I form something innocuously called "Max's Party", but go around explicitly calling everyone not in "Max's Party" unpatriotic, that will piss a LOT of people off.



To look at things from another angle, there seems to be nearly universal agreement in this thread that the phrase "War on Christmas" is inflammatory, even aside from the also-nearly-universal-agreement that it is hilariously inaccurate. Shouldn't the fact that the reasoned opinion of your respected peers is that this phrase is inflammatory be enough to cause you to stop using it, barring some other factors influencing things?

[Bricker]

It's like saying "I disagree with the New Orleans mayor when he famously (and stupidly) said he wanted a 'chocolate New Orleans'. But I do think that in a very limited sense it's important that African-American small businesses are attracted to New Orleans. So I'll call my effort to encourage that the 'Chocolate New Orleans' initiative, and get all huffy when people don't immediately realize what I'm talking about".

Actually, that's a pretty strong analogy.

OK, I agree. Whatever phrase I'm going to use to describe the very real and extant phenomenon I'm talking about, I guess it CAN'T be "War on Christmas." You make an excellent point: that phrase is co-opted now.

This does not destroy my main point: what I'm talking about is real, and more pervasive each year. It's an attack on public recognition of Christmas as Christmas. It's just not useful to call it "War on Christmas."

[Gadarene]

Bricker:

[W]hat I'm talking about is real, and more pervasive each year. It's an attack on public recognition of Christmas as Christmas. It's just not useful to call it "War on Christmas."

Great, so let's get down to brass tacks. Do you have any additional examples, other than the three you offered earlier in the thread? (And do you have a cite yet regarding the Illinois state government?)

[MaxTheVool]

Actually, that's a pretty strong analogy.

OK, I agree. Whatever phrase I'm going to use to describe the very real and extant phenomenon I'm talking about, I guess it CAN'T be "War on Christmas." You make an excellent point: that phrase is co-opted now.



Thanks :)

And go ahead and ignore my most recent post.

[Orbifold]

On the contrary, as I had said AT LEAST TWICE IN THIS THREAD ALREADY, motivation is a very valid method for distinguishing cases.

And yet, only two posts later:

It's an attack on public recognition of Christmas as Christmas.

In none of the examples that you've cited in this thread have you established that there's any malicious motive by any actual person. You've raised spectres of school officials changing celebrations in fear of lawsuits from unknown directions and you've raised spectres of "guerilla activists", "some of whom would like" to get rid of Christmas entirely, without ever actually, you know, identifying any of them. Not once have you pointed to any actual person who has a malicious intent towards Christmas.

And yet you keep using the word "attack". If motivation is a very valid method for distinguishing cases, why don't you try using it?

[jsc1953]

I think that Bricker has a point, to the extent that there is something going on (but "war on Christmas" is a terrible name for it). But I think it's only the symptom of the real problem -- Litigation Paranoia. And I believe that public school districts are the most cravenly victims of the disease. It's the same mind-set that brings us school "zero tolerance" policies for drugs and weapons, which in turn causes students to be suspended for carrying aspirin and nail clippers.

So it's not that guerrillas are attacking Christmas -- it's that the fear of such an attack causes some public entities to tear Christmas down pre-emptively.

[Gadarene]

But I think it's only the symptom of the real problem -- Litigation Paranoia.

If the policies of the Plano Independent School District were undertaken to avoid litigation, they clearly did a damn poor job of it. :)

[MaxTheVool]

So, now that we all agree what we're arguing about, here are some questions to ask while exploring whether Bricker's claims are meaningful:

(1) Is there actually more of a push to keep the religious aspects of Christmas out of the public sphere now than in the past, or is just more visible?

(1a) If there is more of a push now than in the past, is it in proportion to the general increase in secularity and diversity in society? That is, it only makes sense that if, 30 years ago, the US was 95% Christian compared to 85% Christian now (or whatever), there would be a concomitant decrease in public-sphere Christianity.

(2) Is the number of lawsuits filed against schools and similar institutions concerning Christmas significant, compared to the number filed concerning any-old-random-topic?

(3) Is there a slope here, slippery or otherwise? What is the ideal, dreamed-of end goal of whoever is attacking Christmas?

(4) We've all heard about the "offenderati" being offended by being told "Merry Christmas" at the mall. But has that ever happened, at least in enough numbers (or backed up by enough lawsuits) to even be on the radar?


and, while we're on the topic:


(5) To the extent that there is some "attacking" pressure, is it RIGHT? Is it in fact more American and more constitutional to not allow specifically religious icons on public property like schools and city halls? Where should the line be drawn?




Bricker: I'm assuming your answers are:
(1) yes, it's increasing
(1a) it's increasing out of proportion to sociological shifts
(2) yes, the number of lawsuits is significant
(3) yes, there's a slope here, and the end goal is something like the rather hyperbolic claims you made about removing all religion from Christmas (which I responded to in post 170, which you ignored)
(4) yes, it's happened

For each of those answers which are indeed your answer, I'd like to hear a specific argument as to why you think that's the case, along with evidence whenever possible.


Oh, and a cite about that Illinois thing.

[Gorsnak]

I submit that Bricker believes that anything short of complete wholeheartedness in embracing an explicitly Christian celebration of the winter orgy of excess held on and around December 25 constitutes a War on Christmas (or, in light of his recent posts, possibly a Uncoordinated Military Action Opposed to Christmas Program-Related Activities). As such, the mere existence of non-Christians, or the acknowledgement of the existence of non-Christians on the part of people who are Christians, will make it irrefutably the case that this War on Christmas (or UMAOCPRA) exists.

While nothing he's said in this thread really supports this point of view, if I were to misinterpret some of his posts, they could be viewed as evidence for it.

I firmly believe that my argument here is at least as good as and quite possibly better than Bricker's argument in this thread.

[Jackmannii]

Corporations may well decide to say "Happy Holidays" in an effort to appease the vocal minority of people that complain about "Merry Christmas". If they do, that's part of the war on Christmas.If a manufacturer decides to appease the vocal minority who complain about quality by making a better product, is that War?

"This burger is cold. I want another one."

"Warmonger!!!"

War! huh-yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh

War! huh-yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again y'all

War! huh good God
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing

[jsc1953]

If the policies of the Plano Independent School District were undertaken to avoid litigation, they clearly did a damn poor job of it. :)

I didn't say they were smart...just paranoid. :)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

No, that's not so. The plaintiffs specifically said, in their interview with Gibson, that the principal told them the no-red-and-green decorations was intended to forbid Christmas colors.
I hope you'll forgive me if I think that Bricker said that Gibson said that the plaintiffs said that the principal said that they were forbidding Christmas colors is a weak cite :). If you can quote the exact text from Gibson's book, that might be convincing; but then again, it might not be. The details I have of the case so far don't convince me that the plaintiffs are the most stable and clearminded people on the planet; and given that I've read quotes from the school denying that they were forbidding Christmas colors in general, I think there's a prima facie case that they were not doing so.

Daniel

[Bricker]

I hope you'll forgive me if I think that Bricker said that Gibson said that the plaintiffs said that the principal said that they were forbidding Christmas colors is a weak cite :). If you can quote the exact text from Gibson's book, that might be convincing; but then again, it might not be. The details I have of the case so far don't convince me that the plaintiffs are the most stable and clearminded people on the planet; and given that I've read quotes from the school denying that they were forbidding Christmas colors in general, I think there's a prima facie case that they were not doing so.

Daniel

Would a scan of the original PISD letter be convincing?

[Gadarene]

Would a scan of the original PISD letter be convincing?

Does it state that red and green aren't allowed because they're symbolic of Christianity? If so, then I'd find that damn convincing, yes.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Would a scan of the original PISD letter be convincing?
What? No! We're talking about two different things here:
1) The PISD letter, which I don't think you've claimed says anything about forbidding Christmas colors (all it says is that white napkins are requested); and
2) Your paraphrase of an author's interview with the plaintiffs who are paraphrasing the conversation they claim they had with the principal.

Your second claim is the one with the strong evidence of an anti-Christmas policy from the school, but it's the one with the weak evidence. Your first claim is an extremely weak claim of an anti-Christian bias. I certainly believe that someone at the school asked folks to bring white napkins; that's an unexceptional request on their part and does not signify an anti-Christmas attitude. I'm skeptical of the principal's conversation with the plaintiffs, but at least if you can provide us a quote of the book's account of the plaintiff's account of the conversation, we'll have something to work with.

Daniel

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Your second claim is the one with the strong evidence of an anti-Christmas policy from the school, but it's the one with the weak evidence.
Oy vey. The second one is a strong CLAIM of anti-Christmas policy, but it's the one for which the EVIDENCE is weak. Sorry about that.

Daniel

[Nature's Call]

OK, I agree. Whatever phrase I'm going to use to describe the very real and extant phenomenon I'm talking about, I guess it CAN'T be "War on Christmas." You make an excellent point: that phrase is co-opted now.

This does not destroy my main point: what I'm talking about is real, and more pervasive each year. It's an attack on public recognition of Christmas as Christmas. It's just not useful to call it "War on Christmas."

Excellent. I agree with you that something is happening. I disagree that this something is a recent occurrence (the O'Reilly/Gibson effect merely a recent manifestation of it). It can be argued that Coca-Cola, with it's invention of our current image of Santa Claus, is part of this something - tomndebb's former employer's memos on "Happy Holidays" is part of it. Indeed, ever since the Christian hostile takeover of that time of year there has been conflict between the Christian religious observance and the yahoo party-goers. (one cite (http://www.holidays.net/christmas/story.htm) of many). I wonder what O'Reilly's great-great-etc-great ancestor broadcast to the faithful during that struggle :)

So that's it, isn't it? The non-Christians wanna do it their way. Some Christians want everyone to do it their way, motivated by a power-play (or ratings/publishing play) or out a true concern for the salvation of the unsaved. Christianity has as one of its central mandates the "Great Commission" i.e. Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel, fishers of men, and all that. Christans say, "Ye must be saved! Join us!" Party goers say, "Join us! We saved ye an egg nog!"

[Shayna]

Well, since the lawsuit claims to attach the letter in which those restrictions were promulgated as an exhibit (Exhibit 129), I think it would be rather bold of them to make a claim about what the letter said, claim the letter was attached as an exhibit, AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT. Wouldn't it?

Or is that a tactic you've seen a lot?
Precisely one year ago this month, I was embroiled in a legal battle with my former landlord, who was attempting to file an illegal unlawful detainer against my husband and me. This was the culmination of a series of illegal acts, or attempted acts he'd pulled with us. We were living in a rat infested apartment with numerous health code violations that was, literally, uninhabitable (we had to move into a motel when a rat finally outsmarted us and chewed through the towel we'd stuffed under our bedroom door and jumped on the bed and ran from my ankle up my body towards my face -- and yes, the County Health Inspectors found a live rat in the furnace closet in my laundry room during one of their inspections).

My attorney was quite happy when he got notice of the filing that claimed to have certain documents attached, and sent me down to the courthouse to obtain a copy of these alleged attachments. We knew those attachments didn't exist, so either there would be an attachment and it would be a complete forgery, or there would be no attachment at all. Guess which one there was. . . or wasn't, as it were.

Of course on the day of trial, he conveniently dropped the case because he knew he'd have no chance in hell of prevailing in front of a judge. He just wanted to make a point -- that he was bigger, and richer, and meaner and knew exactly how to play the game so that it would cost me thousands of dollars to defend against his bogus allegations, in which case he wins in his sick mind.

So, having lived it, and seen the machinations certain attorneys will go to when filing cases, yes, I can completely believe that there might be no such document actually attached to their filing.

However, even if this letter existed exactly as the complaint purports, it still doesn't qualify as an example of the principal making any such request, seeing as how, as Left Hand of Dorkness pointed out in post #74 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7052571&postcount=74), the school district's attorney claims the alleged letter was written by someone on the PTA. That's not the same as the principal and certainly not the same as the official school district. No. The conversation with the principal was subsequent to the letter. That is, the letter lays out what purports to be the school district's policy. After receiving it, the parents asked for a meeting with the principal, and during that meeting, he affirmed that the policy was as stated. Well, we happen to have a poster here who works for PISD. I just called her and asked her, and she tells me that there is no such school policy banning red and green as Christmas colors. The administration building had not one, not two, but three Christmas trees, one right in the middle of the lobby. If she can wade her way through all 5 pages of this mess, she'll try to post more herself, later.

Would a scan of the original PISD letter be convincing?
It was not a PISD letter. See above.

[Zakalwe]

It was not a PISD letter. See above.But I'd still like to see a copy of it...

[ElvisL1ves]

Bricker, you've evaded the central point, despite frequent prodding, long enough.

Do you or do you not support the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state? If not, why not, and why are you not working to amend it to suit your wishes? If so, what is the nature of your complaint?

The implications of both what you've said and what you've refused to say should be as obvious to you as to the rest of us, and you must know they are totally uncomplimentary to your position and to you personally. If you'd rather dispel them, you may take the opportunity at any time. Or just keep digging, your choice.

[treis]

I propose a name change for the following reasons:

1) War implies an objective, namely defeat your opponent. A War on Christmas implies that there is something attempt to defeat Christmas, not merely public display of it.

2) By using Christmas alone is dishonest when all evidence cited for this war is limited to public areas or government organizations.

3) All evidence cited in this case is no different than any other action towards religion. Thus, Christmas or Christianity is not being singled out and specifiying it in the phrase implies that it is.

4) War implies a somewhat coherent organization that is acting. As far as I am aware there is no such organization attempting to do anything to Christmas.

I suggest the following phrase: "A social trend towards removing religious activities from the public sphere." Its not as sexy nor will it sell books but it is ten times more accurate than "War on Christmas."

[Patty O'Furniture]

And much to John Gibson's chagrin, the phrase "War on Christmas" doesn't seem to be selling many books, either.

[Gadarene]

And much to John Gibson's chagrin, the phrase "War on Christmas" doesn't seem to be selling many books, either.

Apparently sold one to Bricker, though.

[RickJay]

It can be argued that Coca-Cola, with it's invention of our current image of Santa Claus, is part of this something
Coca-Cola did not "invent" the current image of Santa Claus; that's an urban myth. Except for the red colour of his outfit, Santa in his current form was present in Clement Clark Moore's "A Visit from St. Nicholas," written in 1822, long before there was a Coca-Cola. The image developed from there, and the red suit was a standard part of his outfit by the 1890's or so; a Santa Claus of 1906 would be pretty much indistinguishable from one today.

Coke didn't start using Santa until the 1930s.

[Zoe]

Bricker, do you have a theory about who these warriors are and what their motivations might be for declaring war?

Are they opposed to family gatherings with lots of food and new toys? Are they afraid of gaining weight? Have they seen A Charlie Brown Christmas one too many times? Are they repulsed by the scent of bayberry and pine? Do they find decorated neighborhoods to be garish? Do jazz versions of Ukranian Bell Carol get on their nerves? Do they resent the bump to the economy?

And exactly what do they mean by "Happy Holidays"? Are they referring to "Holy Days"?

Exactly what are they up to?

[monavis]

As I see it, the implication that there is a war on Christmas is a way for the Leaders of a fanatical movement to stir up the other fanatics to push forth their agenda, and in some cases it is working;look at what is happening to the Supreme Court. Such leaders cause fear in the hearts of their followers and that is how they hope to succeed. Riled up people are more willing to push an agenda than some others. That is why Bush was elected to begin with. The same people who claim to be so perfect could care less at what happens as long as what they want is the law. A democracy is endangered if one plays into such things. Democracy is and should be a guardian of all peoples rights.

Monavis

[monavis]

Bricker, do you have a theory about who these warriors are and what their motivations might be for declaring war?

Are they opposed to family gatherings with lots of food and new toys? Are they afraid of gaining weight? Have they seen A Charlie Brown Christmas one too many times? Are they repulsed by the scent of bayberry and pine? Do they find decorated neighborhoods to be garish? Do jazz versions of Ukranian Bell Carol get on their nerves? Do they resent the bump to the economy?

And exactly what do they mean by "Happy Holidays"? Are they referring to "Holy Days"?

Exactly what are they up to?

Is the fourth of July a Holy Day? Labor Day? Many none Christians have their Holiday,as most people celebrate New Years Day as a holiday. Holiday's is inclusive, Meryy Christmas is not.

Monavis

[monavis]

Is the fourth of July a Holy Day? Labor Day? Many none Christians have their Holiday,as most people celebrate New Years Day as a holiday. Holiday's is inclusive, Meryy Christmas is not.

Monavis

OOPS! Merry Christmas not Meryy, Sorry about that!

[Nature's Call]

Coca-Cola did not "invent" the current image of Santa Claus; that's an urban myth.

Thank you for correcting this; I should have double checked this before typing. The point didn't hinge, though, on who invented the current image. Please consider my post amended to "Coca-Cola help popularize and standardize the then recently developed images of Santa Claus."

Or better: Those that helped establish the popularity of the current image of Santa, including Coca-Cola and Clement Clark Moore, contributed to the 'something that is not a war' by developing secular iconography as a competetive alternative to the Christian preferences.

Take this, along with the alternates offered by other cultures increasingly more visible, plus the general decline in the popularity of Christianity, then add the Christian desire to "reach out." This is a recipie for tension felt deeply enough in Christian camps that the word "war" does not seem unreasonable to them at first blush.

[Kimstu]

I suggest the following phrase: "A social trend towards removing religious activities from the public sphere."


I still like my previous suggestion of "MAGSPORC", for "Movement Against Government-Sponsored Religious Celebrations". Fits on a bumper sticker and everything. :)

[Nature's Call]

I still like my previous suggestion of "MAGSPORC"...

?? (http://futility.typepad.com/futility/images/spork.jpg)

[jsc1953]

As the saying goes, "never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity"; I think we can add "fear and greed" to "stupidity". I think the following conversations are entirely plausible:

Scene:Wal-Mart (or any other large retailer)

Marketing Director: I'm a bit worried about Christmas. Are we possibly losing sales, by calling it "Christmas"?
Underling: But boss, 99% of our customers celebrate Christmas.
MD: Yeah, but do you wanna lose the 1% wackos who would refuse to shop for "Christmas presents"?
Underling: Good point, boss. Should we run a focus group?
MD: Nah. Just switch to "holiday"...maybe nobody will notice.

Scene: School Board

SB President: I'm worried about Christmas. If we call it "Christmas Vacation" will we get sued?
SB Member: Huh?
SB President: Look at that wacko in Sacramento who sued over the Pledge of Allegiance. We don't need that aggravation.
SB Member: Good point, boss. Can the kids still sing Christmas carols?
SB President: Hmmm....better not. Better to be safe than sorry.

[Kimstu]

Nature's Call: Cool, we can use magnetized sporks as the emblems of our movement! :)


"MAGSPORC. Because your religious celebrations are none of the government's business."

[Gadarene]

Kimstu: You're just marking time in this thread 'til Bricker shows up again, aren't you? :)

[the PC apeman]

Or:

Scene:Wal-Mart (or any other large retailer)

Marketing Director: I think we're contributing too much to the commercialization of Christmas.
Underling: But boss, 99% of our customers celebrate Christmas.
MD: Yeah, but they're going to buy stuff here anyways. Let's tone down the Christmas angle and let our customers get back to the true meaning of Christmas.
Underling: Won't we lose sales?
MD: Nah. Just switch to "holiday"...maybe we'll even please some folks.

Scene: School Board

SB President: I'm worried about religious extremism.
SB Member: Huh?
SB President: Look at that wackos in Plano trying to force Christmas colors on everyone. We don't need that aggravation.
SB Member: Good point, boss. What should we teach the children?
SB President: Hmmm....How about basic language, science and math skills in a non-religious framework.

My point is that maybe some organizations do things based on their own beliefs and not out of fear or pressure.

[Kimstu]

No, Bricker eventually answered my question, so I'm leaving him to the other posters here from now on.

I do enjoy saying "sporc", though. (sporc sporc sporc sporc!) And, to be a little more serious, I do think it's worthwhile to have a handy catchphrase for what we're talking about that's more accurate than the ridiculous (and now universally rejected in this thread) term "War on Christmas".

[jsc1953]

Or:

Scene:Wal-Mart (or any other large retailer)

Marketing Director: I think we're contributing too much to the commercialization of Christmas.
....My point is that maybe some organizations do things based on their own beliefs and not out of fear or pressure.

Oh my goodness. What color is the sky on your planet?

[Gadarene]

All right then, jsc: what about countervailing fears and pressures?

[jsc1953]

All right then, jsc: what about countervailing fears and pressures?

Certainly. When Wal-Mart is creating the signage for their post-thanksgiving sales, and deciding whether to use the word "holiday" or "Christmas", the thoughts running through their little pea brains are:

1. Fear of offending Christmas fans.
2. Fear of offending potential shoppers who are non-Christmas fans.
3. Which way will lead to larger sales?
.
.
.
.
999: Which way aligns with personal beliefs, ethics and concern for the good of the culture as a whole?

[Gorsnak]

Nature's Call: Cool, we can use magnetized sporks as the emblems of our movement! :)


"MAGSPORC. Because your religious celebrations are none of the government's business."
Well, I have nothing against magnetized sporks, but I feel compelled to point out that if you were to co-opt the ankh as your movement's emblem, you could sell list them in your website mechandizing as "Ankh-Magsporc"

[JustAnotherGeek]

Well, I have nothing against magnetized sporks, but I feel compelled to point out that if you were to co-opt the ankh as your movement's emblem, you could sell list them in your website mechandizing as "Ankh-Magsporc"
Where's that "slap-other-poster-smilie?"

:D

[the PC apeman]

Oh my goodness. What color is the sky on your planet?
Well certainly the dialogue is contrived but what about the main point? Why is it easier to believe that the actions of an organization are the result of fear or pressure rather than a true expression of their values?

[jsc1953]

Well certainly the dialogue is contrived but what about the main point? Why is it easier to believe that the actions of an organization are the result of fear or pressure rather than a true expression of their values?

It wasn't the dialog that I marvelled at; it was the main point. Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I believe that any organization whose main goal is the bottom line, is driven by the need to maximize profits and shareholder value. All other considerations are secondary. So if their values* (if a corporation can be said to have values) fall in line with their primary goal, that's a bonus; if not, then those values can be jettisoned.

So in the case of a major retailing chain, all decisions concerning "what do we call Christmas" are driven by its impact on sales.

*And whose values come into play, anyway, in an organization with thousands of employees, hundreds of executives and hundreds of thousands of shareholders?

[the PC apeman]

It wasn't the dialog that I marvelled at; it was the main point. Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I believe that any organization whose main goal is the bottom line, is driven by the need to maximize profits and shareholder value. All other considerations are secondary. So if their values* (if a corporation can be said to have values) fall in line with their primary goal, that's a bonus; if not, then those values can be jettisoned.

So in the case of a major retailing chain, all decisions concerning "what do we call Christmas" are driven by its impact on sales.

*And whose values come into play, anyway, in an organization with thousands of employees, hundreds of executives and hundreds of thousands of shareholders?

Organizations, large and small, are not run by insensitive alien others. They are run by people not unlike you or me. They live in homes and have friends and relatives. They think, believe and feel like anyone else. They don't leave their humanity in a locker when they go to work. Mega-retailer or local school district, organizations are run by people with values. We may not like their values but they're there.

An extension of my point is that maybe what the OP is observing is not the result external forces lined up against Christmas. It is quite possible we are seeing a shift in values - forces internal to people and therefore internal to organizations. Such a change can be threatening. I'm suggesting that the war on Christmas is a fiction that some people tell themselves rather than believe their values are not as widely held as they would like.

[jsc1953]

I agree with virtually all of what you say, PCapeman. I know that corporate executives are human and hold widely-held human values. But their business decisions are driven my many factors, the most important of which is impact on sales and sharevalue. This is how they earn a living, by keeping an eye onthe bottom line. Those personal values are secondary at best.

I'm certain that most of those executives who decide to put "Holiday Sale" on their signage go home and wish their friends and families "Merry Christmas".

I also agree that the so-called war on Christmas is really just an extension of this. Executives note the shift in demographics, and decide that they may need to address this change in order to keep up or increase sales. The perceived change is driven by capitalism, and not by any substantial change in culture (other than the demographic change). It's capitalism at work, and not a sudden onslaught of liberal secular humanism.

[the PC apeman]

I agree with virtually all of what you say, PCapeman. I know that corporate executives are human and hold widely-held human values. But their business decisions are driven my many factors, the most important of which is impact on sales and sharevalue. This is how they earn a living, by keeping an eye onthe bottom line. Those personal values are secondary at best.

I'm certain that most of those executives who decide to put "Holiday Sale" on their signage go home and wish their friends and families "Merry Christmas".

I also agree that the so-called war on Christmas is really just an extension of this. Executives note the shift in demographics, and decide that they may need to address this change in order to keep up or increase sales. The perceived change is driven by capitalism, and not by any substantial change in culture (other than the demographic change). It's capitalism at work, and not a sudden onslaught of liberal secular humanism.

True, jsc1953, we are not all that far apart on this and I do appreciate your perspective. Also, I owe you an apology. I did not mean to mock your point with that dialogue and I see how it might be taken it that way. I wanted to point out that not everyone is reactionary - some people act on their own values. And, it may help to replace values where it appears in my posts with priorities. That way it is distinct from the thorny definitions of ethics or morals.

I imagine it is quite likely that the executives who put "Holiday Sale" on their signage do go home and wish their friends and families "Merry Christmas" (if they are Christmas observers, of course). But the two are different situations. Such a person might also say "Happy Holidays" to a stranger. It could be that person's priority to embrace a wider world - not because he fears offending anyone, but because he holds diversity to be important. A cynical person might say such an executive has merely given in to political correctness. I say such an executive is expressing his values - values that disturb some.

No doubt there are spineless mega-retailers, local schools districts, and what-have-you out there that react out of political correctness. And yes, the color of the sky in my world may be a bit peculiar, but I prefer not paint so many with such a broad brush.

[redtail23]

Bricker - you say thisThis does not destroy my main point: what I'm talking about is real, and more pervasive each year. It's an attack on public recognition of Christmas as Christmas. and then say (several times ;)) that motivation is key - it's OK if an organization has/changes policies so that Christmas isn't explicitly celebrated by the organization, as long as those policies were set because of internal decisions and not due to external pressure (e.g., litigation, boycotts, or threats thereof).

Here's my question: how do you tell the difference, when you are not a part of the organization/process? And what do you do about all the other people on "your side" of the argument who don't make that differentiation?

An anecdotal example from my personal experience: My town has a parade every December. It is not organized or supported by the city, or even the Chamber of Commerce, but rather by an extremely loose coalition of various businesses, organizations, and individuals. There's an all-volunteer board and committee, who set a theme every year, make pertinent decisions (like the decision to ban candy THROWING due to a number of nearly-crushed munchkins over the last several years; this year, parade participants had to HAND candy to the kids), etc. The parade itself consists of pretty much anyone who wants to sign up - you can have a float, or carry a banner, or drive a car, or ride your bicycle, or walk your dog, or whatever (family-appropriate). You don't even have to follow the theme. Not following the theme may count against you in the float-judging, but I wouldn't even guarantee that. As far as I remember, the theme has rarely, if ever, been explicitly Christmas-oriented, and certainly not Christmas in the religious sense. It's usually some cutesy topic that will allow fun, creative floats. (The parades are actually pretty fun, either to watch or to participate, and there's a great turnout for both. There's always the high-school marching bands, a few horses, at least one Santa, some great floats, cool antique cars, the local animal-rescue dogs, and lots of people giving away candy. Merchants on the route often hand out hot cocoa or cider or something to nearby spectators. I don't know how many people there are, but it takes a couple hours to watch it go by, and longer than that to traverse the entire route.)

Now, last year, one of the committee members suggested, more or less, that since we're a college town of ever-increasing size, and seeing as how the diversity of the town has increased mightily since the end of Jim Crow and sundown laws, and since there are, you know, other religions, and since we're trying to encourage community involvement, that it might just be polite to acknowledge those facts by ceasing to nominally exclude non-Christians by having a Christmas Parade. Not that it really did exclude anyone, you understand, just that it would be a nice thing to do to have a Holiday Parade instead, so that it was clear that it wasn't a religious event and that EVERYONE was welcome to participate. All the members of the board and committee, including many devout Southern Baptists who would never, ever, have come up with this on their own, thought about it and agreed that it would be a nice, polite, friendly thing to do. (Admittedly, the volunteers often tend to come from the arts community, so some do lean left. For Okies, that is.) So anyway, they changed the name from Christmas Parade to Holiday Parade.

Exactly what you're talking about, right? A change from within, based solely on the values and decisions of the organization, with absolutely no pressure from the outside. No problem. Yeah, right.

Holy moly, from the reaction of many citizens, you would have thought they changed it to "The AntiChrist Parade" and had Satanists actively recruiting enroute. "War on Christmas" was one of the nicer things said. Of course, the specter of some vast, liberal, leftwing conspiracy to destroy America and Family (as well as Christmas) was trotted out regularly. Christians (not all of them, obviously) threw screaming, hissing, foaming fits about THEIR holiday and THEIR parade and THEIR town being ruined. Even after the board and committee apologized for upsetting people, and explained the reasoning for the change, these people continued to do their best O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Hannity imitations and insist that the name COULD NOT BE CHANGED because it was WRONG WRONG WRONG to DESTROY Christmas, and anyone that didn't celebrate Christmas should just suck it up. (Because, you know, if you're not Christian, you just don't count -- I do live in the buckle on the Bible Belt. Actually, 'round here, there's a fair number of folks that wouldn't count YOU as Christian, Bricker, if my memory that you're Catholic is correct .)

So in my experience, there IS no difference due to motivation. It doesn't matter why someone or some group chooses to use a less exclusive phrase - it's all part of the evil, pervasive, ever-increasing attack on Christmas, that everyone would see if they would just remove their biased blinders, just like your book says.

So, do you have any examples at all where private entities made changes to their policies, to exclude Christmas in whatever manner, due to the litigation/threats that you keep mentioning? Or is it just obvious that it must be happening that way, because, you know, there's no other possible reason that anyone would ever make such changes except to attack Christmas?

[Mtgman]

Ok, so let's recap.

There is no overt, explicit movement to remove "Christmas" from either the public sphere or public view. No ACLU pages saying it is their intent to challenge retailers who say "Merry Christmas" to people, right?

All the individual instances thus far identified have sprung from motives which do not remotely resemble antipathy towards Christians or Christmas in general. Many are trying to be MORE respectful of religious views. Others seem to be outright misunderstandings.

Another type of "attack on Christmas" is described as corporate policy decisions favoring a secular slogan over a Christian one for some undefined reason. As of yet no instance of a policy change without a benign motivation has been introduced into the body of evidence. As such it is, at the moment, discounted.

A handful are citizens who are claiming the state-sponsored events/displays violate the establishment clause. The courts will settle these.

So what the OP seems to be contending is that the net effect of all these benign, or even noble intentioned, and unrelated in cause changes, is problematic for some reason. He cites "tradition" as being something which should be preserved without giving a reason why this tradition should not change or deliniating any harm which would occur from said change.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Patty O'Furniture]

Even the Grinch learned his lesson.

He HADN'T stopped Christmas from coming!
IT CAME!
Somehow or other, it came just the same!

And the Grinch, with his grinch-feet ice-cold in the snow,
Stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?
It came without ribbons! It came without tags!
"It came without packages, boxes or bags!"
And he puzzled three hours, `till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before!
"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store.
"Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!"

From Surgical Strike Against Christmas (http://www.kraftmstr.com/christmas/books/grinch.html), starring Bill O'reilly as Little Cindy-Lou Who.

[Bricker]

I am in New Hampshire for the next three days. I'll be on the boards in limited fashion, but not able to do detailed posts or cites.

See you on Saturday.

[Apos]

Hell, half the people accused of hating Christmas and Christianity are CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES. That's why, as I pointed out, this is a war of a particular ideology of Christian-facist who have turned their religion into a pissing contest.

A city councilman recently questioned whether it was right to fund the Salvation Army with government dollars when it seems to use those dollars directly to promote religious ideas rather than providing the contracted charity. The local Salvation Army guy, in response, says that he quetions the morality of having a city councilman who so obviously hates Christianity so much. Of, the city councilman is a Christian: that goes without saying. But anyone who stands in the way of government is of course an untouchable.

And the Salvation Army guy? The moralizing, know-who-is-a-Christian-and-whos-not? Caught sending porno shots to what he thought was an underage boy... but was really a cop. I mean, that sequence seems almost like a science.

The truly disgusting thing is that it wasn't too long ago that the Christianists were loudly decrying Godless Constitution and the idiosyncratic founders. Time and time again they tried to pass an amendment to remove religious tests and officially consecrate the Constitution to God. The best they could get was "booby-prizes" like "In God We Trust" on the money and "Under God" in the pledge. Legislatively, they otherwise failed time and time again.

Now, suddenly, they are turning around and declaring that the Constitution is a devinely Christian document and that secularists have somehow taken the true Constitutions meaning away by judicial power, eschewing the legislatures. Irony, thy name is Dobson/Barton/laundry list of people who are turning Christianity into nothing more special than a dog pissing to mark its territory.

[ElvisL1ves]

I am in New Hampshire for the next three days. I'll be on the boards in limited fashion, but not able to do detailed posts or cites.

See you on Saturday.
It wouldn't take long to address any of the many objections/rebuttals/questions raised to you here. If you're hoping we'll all just forget about it in 3 days so you won't have to :dubious:, then good luck.

[MaxTheVool]

It wouldn't take long to address any of the many objections/rebuttals/questions raised to you here. If you're hoping we'll all just forget about it in 3 days so you won't have to :dubious:, then good luck.

Preemptively needling Bricker seems a bit low. I see no reason not to assume he will be a man of his word. (Albeit a man of his word who is totally divorced from reality and common sense when it comes to the issue at hand :) )

[MMI]

What does "public recognition of Christmas as Christmas" mean?

Christmas in the places I have lived has always had a dual nature. On the one hand is the secular holiday (with the gifts, caroling, the secret santa's, the Christmas parties at school) for which Christmas was a kind of a vague theme providing hints for decorations (some pagan, some quasi-Christian, some Christian - perhaps with an occasional Menorah thrown in for fun) and refreshments. On the other hand was the religious holiday, the end of the Advent, with Midnight Mass. In Sunday school (okay, CCD was never on sundays) it was always emphasized what Christmas was not about - and that was commercialization and getting gifts.

Insisting that secular Christmas be recognized as religious Christmas seems to me to be fighting decades of slippage and is as foolish as it is hopeless. Better to let the secular festivities become "holiday" festivities and allow the religious celebrations be as they were intended.

[ElvisL1ves]

Preemptively needling Bricker seems a bit low. Given his constant ducking of every reply since starting this silly thing?

[Gadarene]

Bricker certainly seems to have time to start new debates (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=356951); I wish he'd take a second or two and answer some of the simpler questions that I (and others) have posed herein.

[Zakalwe]

perhaps with an occasional Menorah thrown in for funSorry for the hijack, but I had to comment on this. For several years now, I have had and displayed a Menorah as part of our holiday decorations (I am not Jewish, nor even Christian). I thought maybe I was the only one who did this. Certainly my wife thinks it's some sort of seasonal insanity...

[Bricker]

Bricker certainly seems to have time to start new debates (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=356951); I wish he'd take a second or two and answer some of the simpler questions that I (and others) have posed herein.

Sure.

But it's much easier to start a new thread can comb through this one as I could woth more time. But as you did before, if you will list post #'s of unanswered questions, or summarize them in one post, I will be happy to take a run. The only thing I can;t do is provide detailed cites, since that requires research which is also a time issue.

[Voyager]

Or better: Those that helped establish the popularity of the current image of Santa, including Coca-Cola and Clement Clark Moore, contributed to the 'something that is not a war' by developing secular iconography as a competetive alternative to the Christian preferences.

It strikes me that "A Visit from St. Nicholas" neither mentions Jesus nor the reason for the season. I think tonight I'll rewrite "Talking John Birch Society Blues" as "Talking War on Christmas Blues."

Oh, Clement Moore?

Anyhow, maybe the culprits here are the pagans who are trying to take winter solstice back from the Christians who stole it from them 1500 years ago.

[the PC apeman]

Sure.

But it's much easier to start a new thread can comb through this one as I could woth more time. But as you did before, if you will list post #'s of unanswered questions, or summarize them in one post, I will be happy to take a run. The only thing I can;t do is provide detailed cites, since that requires research which is also a time issue.

Bricker, were you planning to, and will you, comb through this thread of yours after returning from New Hampshire?

[Bricker]

Bricker, were you planning to, and will you, comb through this thread of yours after returning from New Hampshire?

Yup.

[Gadarene]

Yup.

Great; I can wait.

[the PC apeman]

Yup.
Good enough for me.