# War on Christmas - revisited **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2006, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205 "2006-01-30T15:11:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/181 "2006-01-31T21:05:18Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/182 "2006-01-31T21:12:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/183 "2006-01-31T21:14:43Z")
> [@Nature's Call](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/184 "2006-01-31T21:16:43Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/185 "2006-01-31T21:18:38Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/186 "2006-01-31T21:21:43Z")
> [@Aholibah](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/187 "2006-01-31T21:27:51Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/188 "2006-01-31T21:34:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/189 "2006-01-31T21:35:52Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/190 "2006-01-31T21:38:30Z")
**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?) ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/191 "2006-01-31T21:38:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/192 "2006-01-31T21:45:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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: > [@Bricker](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/193 "2006-01-31T22:10:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/194 "2006-01-31T22:14:09Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/195 "2006-01-31T22:14:40Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/196 "2006-01-31T22:14:47Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/197 "2006-01-31T22:18:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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\* ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/198 "2006-01-31T22:23:54Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > 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. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/199 "2006-01-31T22:45:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/200 "2006-01-31T22:52:55Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > 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? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=11)