So long as you are at it, did you ever withdraw your statement about the Democrats finding “extraordinary circumstances” (filibuster) of O’Connor’s replacement? I’m not saying you didn’t, I just haven’t seen it.
Is there a point, Bricker – as each of the incidents held up by Gibson and O’Reilly as evidence of an anti-Christmas offensive are revealed to be, at best, vastly overblown – at which the burden shifts for you, and you start viewing all such “evidence” with some degree of skepticism, considering the track record of your sources?
Or are you gonna make someone like Shayna do the legwork to track down and disprove each claim of Gibson and O’Reilly’s that you adopt by proxy, as you continue to cling to them?
If only *you * had done even a token amount of independent research *yourself * on the subject, hmm? That would have saved you a considerable amount of embarrassment, and the near-total loss of your credibility that resulted from it. Will you take on a little responsibility before launching another thread as foolish as that one?
I wonder whether anyone lost respect in Bricker’s credibility over this, given his response in this thread? Elvis, it’s pretty clear how you feel about Bricker, but even you didn’t lose respect for him, I think.
Daniel
I don’t think that’s a subject you really want to explore, LHOD, least of all in *this * forum.
For Pete’s sake he withdrew and complimented Shayna on the excellent research. Show a little grace and let it go.
Marc
As an aside, I just want to say that this regimentation is the sort of think that the rest of the metroplex makes fun of Plano ISD for. Here in Dallas ISD, we’d have asked for napkins and been happy if they came with turkeys or birthday candles on them.
Mind you, they make fun of us for the low test scores, the rampant embezzlement and corruption, the violence and drugs . . . .but damnit, we don’t stress over matching napkins.
Shayna. Great work.
And, if I can be allowed to piggyback on your thread–Bricker used in his original thread a story cited by Gibson which said something to the effect that
.
Of course, making it sound as if the State of Illinois instigated this is false. There are very few stories about this incident out there, but the press release from the Conservative Alliance Defense Fund will do the job nicely.
So, it was an isolated incident concerning only the Rock Island County Health Department. The ACLU was nowhere in sight, but if the employee had contacted the ACLU instead of the ADF, I’m sure you’d agree that the outcome would have been the same and the ACLU would have been on the side of the employees.
Another overblown example of the conspiracy.
Yes, I did, in a couple of places.
TWEEEEEEEET!
OK, the original thread was closed (because the question in the OP had been beaten to pulp) with a couple of outstanding questions remaining. This thread addressed one of the questions and is a proper venue to seek resolution of a couple more.
HOWEVER,
it is not a proper venue (nor is GD the proper Forum) for everyone with a nit to pick with Bricker to wander in and throw darts, particularly regarding separate issues from totally unrelated threads.
If there is specific question regarding social conflicts in the U.S. in the early 21st century that may or may not have a negative impact on the celebration of Christmas, feel free to bring it up (with the understanding that Bricker is under no obligation to respond). If you simply want to get Bricker to repeat for the fourth or fifth time that he does not think that a belief in a “war” on Christmas is tenable, then just don’t bother wasting our electrons. If this looks like it is going to turn into a “rag on Bricker” thread with lots of nitpicking and vague assertions about unclear topics, it will be shut down.
[ /Moderating ]
I graduated from P.I.S.D. a number of years ago and they do a lot of silly things. The elementary school kids in the late 90’s were learning such valuable things as Pig-Latin and how to hug trees. Still, I am constantly amazed by the number of opportunties I had in middle and high school by attending such a wealthy school district when compared to some of the other high schools in the nation.
Marc
I have been “scolded” at times for rejecting things out of hand and automatically, because if who said it. However, when hearing or reading what an O’Reilly, Hannity, Gibson, Moore, Limbaugh, whatever, says about something and then comparing their “facts” to the truth, there comes a point where you just have no reason to trust their word on anything anymore.
There is some wisdom in the phrase “Consider the source”. When people have a long history of bending the truth, or outright fabrication, there is no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.
Shayna, you and Bricker are both examples of the reasons I love this place so much! Bricker’s thread was fascinating and I read every post. He is gifted with the ability to explain things clearly enough for me to know that I disagree with him. And he is honorable in his concessions. Shayna, I am amazed at your willingness to track this down. Well done, indeed!
One bit of unfinished business for me. In the other thread I listed many violations against my civil and religious rights while I was a public school teacher. These things did happen long ago – prior to my retirement in 1989. That school administration was part of what drove me nuts and I retired on a disability. I still have nightmares about it and it seems like the day before yesterday to me. But most of the time, I’m okay about it. I have no idea what the reality is in public schools in Nashville presently.
I offer my apologies if what I said was confusing or misleading.
But isn’t that what that whole “war on Christmas” referred to in the prior thread is? Things like changing “Christmas Break” to “Winter Break” instead of teaching them what Christmas is and encouraging them to celebrate it. And isn’t that wahst the people decrying a “war on Christmas” are complaining about?
What kid doesn’t know what Christmas is and why should they be encouraged to celebrate it? How are Christians being harmed by more inclusive language?
Well, it’s my understanding that the basic argument of the “War on Christmas” people, and more generally, the “War on Christianity” people, was that, while there is a seperation of Church and State in this country, and no official religion, the US is and has been a majority Christian country, and the government and society has traditionally, de facto, been biased toward Christianity. Recently (within the past 40-50 years), this has started to change, with things like the banning of teacher led prayer in schools, challenges about the “Under God” part of the Pledge, changing “Christmas Break” to “Winter Break”, etc., and that this change has gone even further than removing a Christian bias to removing a bias toward theism generally.
Now whether this trend is good or bad is itself a matter for debate, but I think it’s safe to say that that’s what the War on Christmas people are complaining about.
In the specific school districts with which I have (somewhat) direct contact, the choice of “Winter Break” was made by (predominantly Christian) administrations who recognized that Christians were no longer the overwhelming majority (although they tended to remain a simple majority) of students. On the other hand, those districts with which I have connections in which the population remains overwhelmingly Christian have tended to keep the name “Christmas Break.” The phrase “War on Christmas” as espoused by Gibson, O’Reilly, Falwell, and others is based on a claim that (good, Christian) people are being compelled to keep silent about Christmas. If Gibson or O’Reilly insisted that Beachwood, Ohio, with a population that is over 75% Jewish, had to keep the name “Christmas Break,” then I would be forced to move from a position that they are exploiting a general cultural phenomenon (and lying about its sources) to a position that they are being rabidly anti-semitic and pro Christian hegemony.
Why should Solon, OH, with a population that, every year, is less solidly Christian and more a mixture of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist cling to a tradition of “Christmas” when an increasing number of students do not recognize the birth of Jesus as anything more than an opportunity to spend money and hang lights on houses?
No one has gone out to Chardon and demanded (or even asked, that I am aware) that they change the title of the break in December.
So, from my perspective, we have retailers and agencies such as school districts recognizing that they will exclude fewer customers or clients with more religious-neutral language and opposed to them we have a group who is seeking self promotion by mischaracterizing the attendant changes as a deliberate conspiracy and a “war.” (Note that I am addressing the people who coined and popularized the phrase in the media and not any poster, here.)
Of course I accept, and thank you.
However, there are a couple of issues I’d still like to resolve or understand with regard to that debate, as it pertains to this case, specifically. First of all, I’d like to know – if you’re willing to share with us – how you were “given to understand” that the letter was from the district or the principal, or that it expressly prohibited red and green due to their association with Christmas. I ask because the cites you provided never supported such an allegation; they were either opinion pieces or, if they were legal documents, quite clearly never said anything like that. In fact, when I pointed out that even the plaintiff’s attorney in the official court transcript of the Hearing didn’t even make that claim, you completely ignored that post and still clung to what you were “given to understand.”
Additionally, I’d very much like to know how the law works with regard to whether one Circuit’s rulings can be used by attorneys arguing a case in another Circuit, to cite as precedent, or some other legal term I might not be familiar with. Specifically, considering that the Plano case also covers their “distribution” policy as it pertains to religiously themed candy canes and pencils, how could the ruling by the judges in the Third Circuit in Daniel Walz vs the Egg Harbor Township Board of Education, be used by the judge hearing the case in Plano? Can the attorneys introduce it? Can the judge cite it when writing his ruling? (all bolding mine)
So, given that the Plano case involves kindergarteners and 4th graders, knowing what you know about it (or can learn), how does it appear to hold up given the ruling in the above case? I asked this in the previous thread, though not nearly as thoroughly, but you once again chose mostly not to address it, only commenting that the revised distribution policy was “in line with the Third Circuit’s ruling.” However, at the time you acknowledged that, you were under the false assumption that the Plano case had been resolved, unaware that it is, in fact, still pending litigation. So, seeing as how it’s still in court, will you address this issue here?
Also, you seemed to be quite concerned about over-cautious administrators and the “chilling effect” their (paraphrased) often too stringent rules, borne out of fear of lawsuits, is having on religious expression in public elementary schools.
However, in reading the full Opinion in the above-referenced NJ case, I found this. . .
It appears as if the courts are perfectly willing to afford administrators a great deal of leeway in curtailing all kinds of activity, including speech, based on the administrator’s expertise of what’s best for his or her schools and/or classrooms. How does that mesh with your assertion that constitutional rights are being “chilled?”
Further, we have the part of the discussion that centered around Plano’s “Distribution of non-school materials” policy, which, whether considering it before or after it was amended, is neutral with regard to religious items, forbidding distribution during classtime of any and all non-school related materials, which you also never acknowledged or replied to. This type of policy appears to have Supreme Court authority behind it, as well. . .
Given this, do you still assert that such a policy “chills” your elementary school-aged child’s constitutional rights?
And lastly, I wonder if you would be so kind as to apologize for the nasty personal insult directed at me, accusing me of "[pretending] that the text of the Constitution. . . means anything to [me]" or that “* don’t appear to have the slightest interest in reading the actual text of the Constitution in any issue.”
Thank you. I look forward to your reply.
Shayna: Cases from other Circuits aren’t binding on a court, but they’re persuasive. That is to say, if the case is utterly on point, the judge should probably acknowledge its existence – and if the case supports the court’s argument, especially if there are no contrary cases in the home Circuit, then the court will look to the other Circuit for support, insofar as the facts can be made to align.
Thanks, Gadarene. I realize cases from other courts aren’t “binding,” but I guess I’m unclear on the legal definition of “precedent” versus the common layperson’s usage of the term. What I think you’re saying is that, in matters of law, something that is “precedent” is therefore “binding,” so that, for instance, if another parent were to sue a school district on the issue of an elementary school student handing out candy canes with religious messages during class parties, anywhere in the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit, all the defendant’s attorneys would have to do is cite the Walz case, and, assuming all the elements are “on point,” it’s pretty much a slam dunk that the plaintiffs lose, because basically that issue has been decided there. On the other hand, if a parent in a different jurisdiction were to file a similar case, defendants’ attorneys could say to the Court, "In Walz v The Egg Harbor School Board, the Third Circuit found that. . . " and the judge would then review that case and take it into consideration when making his or her own ruling. Is there a distinct legal term for such a reference/usage?
And in somewhat the same fashion, if I were to point out in a discussion on a message board that legal “precedent” does exist for elementary school students not having their First Amendment rights infringed upon when they’re prohibited from distributing religiously-themed items during class parties, then cite the Egg Harbor case, would that be a fair statement, even though the case I’m citing isn’t “binding” on the parties in the specific case under discussion? If not, what term should be used?