# 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:** 20
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/381 "2006-02-07T22:33:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 1. Reaction not to a specific threat, but to a general, amorphous, perceived atmosphere, a desire to be “politically correct,” or to avoid potential but un-threatened boycotts or negative perceptions. How is that different from “2) Fear of litigation with no direct immediate threat…” if I amend it to be merely "Fear of retaliation with no direct immediate threat…? The point I was trying to make, of course, is a “war” takes two parties. If one person in isolation becomes afraid, without that other part it’s not a battle/war/word-that-is-not-war. Is that, however worded, the substance of your “it” that is happening? If so, it’s definitely not restricted to Christmas. We had our annual Garden and Pond Tour cancelled last year because the year prior someone tripped and sprained their ankle. They didn’t sue, but organizers were afraid the next time they wouldn’t be so lucky and sought to buy insurance. It was too pricey and they cancelled. Same recipie, no? Not a war on gardening or anything close, right? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/382 "2006-02-07T22:35:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I was commenting on the one where the ACLU sent the letter, and it wound up in court. As I mentioned. You quoted **Bricker** from post [334](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7078420&postcount=334) In which he was responding directly to this quotqtion from **tom~** > [@tomndebb](#): > > So, following a year in which a minister played Santa, the ACLU sends a letter “asking” about the practice. When the school board meets to discuss the issue, the entire discussion revolves around whether it is appropriate to be using cultural symbols that are exclusionary of some students and the ACLU letter is shuffled to the back with a remark that they cannot comment until they see what issue the ACLU has raised. > This becomes an attempt to “remove” Christmas? That case did not end up in court. The case that went to court was the Akron case involving the city logo with the Bible on it. ---
**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:** [February 7, 2006, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/383 "2006-02-07T22:40:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 1. The attorney’s advice arose not out of his best judgement on what the law requires, but his best judgement on the interests of his client, which was a litigation-adverse entity. The attorney wasn’t asked, “Is this constitutional?” He was asked, “What should we do?” His advice minimizes the exposure to litigation. What are you basing this on? [Certainly not on your cite](http://ardmoreite.com/stories/121604/loc_1216040025.shtml): > [@the Superintendent](#): > > ‘‘I knew that this decision would be a tough one,’’ Springer said. ‘‘Probably in my life, I’ve never had to make a decision as difficult as this. But I had two strong legal opinions that said something we had planned could be illegal. I wanted to make sure we protected our community from some kind of lawsuit.’’ [emphasis added] Yes, you can read the law. But you can’t read the specifics of the case in that law. The cite says that the play was planned to end with a manger scene; it may be that the scene was sufficiently removed from the rest of the play (especially given how it was tacked on, not originally in there) that it constituted a separate religious expression, not an expression in the context of other religious expressions. You and I can’t know that, but the district’s attorney could. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/384 "2006-02-07T22:44:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why does it come down to that? There is no such person or organization. > > Again I refer you to the pirahna analogy. You can demand to see the individual piranha responsible for killing the cow, and I can’t show you a piranha that could have killed a rabbit, much less a cow. But in the aggregate, the piranhas as a whole can reduce the cow to a skeleton. False analogy. You could easily say “piranhas did it, and not rabid chickens.” Even so, it’s not a war on cows (or something like war). If you’re saying society is the school of piranahs, then that would name society as the aggressor. That is to say, “society wishes there to be less Christmas.” Is this the point we’re debating? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/385 "2006-02-07T22:46:55Z")
> [@Nature's Call](#): > > Is that, however worded, the substance of your “it” that is happening? If so, it’s definitely not restricted to Christmas. We had our annual Garden and Pond Tour cancelled last year because the year prior someone tripped and sprained their ankle. They didn’t sue, but organizers were afraid the next time they wouldn’t be so lucky and sought to buy insurance. It was too pricey and they cancelled. Same recipie, no? Not a war on gardening or anything close, right? If we saw this happening all over the country, with focus on garden and pond tours, then I’d argue that there was an “It” related to gardens and ponds. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/386 "2006-02-07T22:48:20Z")
> [@Nature's Call](#): > > False analogy. You could easily say “piranhas did it, and not rabid chickens.” Even so, it’s not a war on cows (or something like war). > > If you’re saying society is the school of piranahs, then that would name society as the aggressor. That is to say, “society wishes there to be less Christmas.” Is this the point we’re debating? Well, no. Because most of society either is neutral or in favor of Christmas, I believe. But there is a small minority of unconnected folks whose actions drive these results. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/387 "2006-02-07T23:05:32Z")
I have to say **Bricker** , I am a bit confused about the ACLU’s role in this “war”. You see becuase they have done things like [suing to allow a student to hand out candy canes with religious messages](http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html). That, to me at least, constitutes fighting to protect Christmas in the public sphere. It seems as though the ACLU is fighting on both sides of this “war”. Do you disagree? ---
**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:** [February 7, 2006, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/388 "2006-02-07T23:08:42Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I have to say **Bricker** , I am a bit confused about the ACLU’s role in this “war”. You see becuase they have done things like [suing to allow a student to hand out candy canes with religious messages](http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html). That, to me at least, constitutes fighting to protect Christmas in the public sphere. It seems as though the ACLU is fighting on both sides of this “war”. Do you disagree? Indeed, given the disparity between religious folks’ perception of the ACLU and the reality of the ACLU’s actions, I think you could infer hostile action being taken by certain unaffiliated people to deceive Christians about civil liberties and those who protect them. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/389 "2006-02-07T23:27:28Z")
> [@ThePCapeman](#): > > Meetings with both groups were reported in the media. They are examples of pressure groups trying to influence a private business. Do you have any examples of this kind where a group has tried to get a private business to minimize or eliminate references to Christmas? As far as I know, this part of things is completely one sided. The unwashed nutjob hordes did threaten boycotts against “Happy Holidays” offenders. But no group threatened counter boycotts if places like Target caved into this pressure. This is a clear example of “PC” being employed on the side of the religious right, rather than the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/390 "2006-02-07T23:40:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, no. Because most of society either is neutral or in favor of Christmas, I believe. But there is a small minority of unconnected folks whose actions drive these results. These anonymous, unconnected folks - are they threatening law suits, or contributing in some indirect way to a climate of fear of lawsuits? If you’re claiming the former, then of course that claim must be backed up with a cite. If the latter, then yeah that’d be hard to demonstrate so if that’s where you’re coming from I can agree with you. But does that constitute something special with respect to Christmas going on? I mentioned the Garden Tour. While I have no direct evidence, I suspect ours was not the only Garden tour to wrestle with the issue. As a former Boy Scout leader, I and fellow leaders wrestled with fears of litigation when considering actions. Those higher in the organization developed strict reactionary policies out of such fears. Where I work, when we moved into our new building, we ixnayed a plan to provide on-site day care, as well as an on-site fitness centre - again out of these fears. Oh, and some organizations may be making policy about the use of the word Christmas on such fears too. So can we try this on for size: “Reactions to Feared Lawsuits that Affect Many Activities including Christmas - revisited.” Have we reached the end of the debate? ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/391 "2006-02-07T23:40:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Except that the _effect_ of this movement goes beyond that. The effect is to chill _constitutional_ governmental involvement with religion. There is no constitutional requirement that demands a rule forbidding students to distribute religious-themed material at school. Yet the Plano School District imposed such a rule. There is no constitutional requirement mandating that the winter holiday season cannot be called “Christmas,” yet the Newrton School Board was threatened with litigation if they did that. There is no rule forbidding a nativity scene in a school production, as long as it’s balanced by other symbols and icons – yet the Mustang school authorities believed that they were required to remove the Nativity scene and were permitted to leave the other religious symbols. > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@ThePCapeman](#): > > > > Is there any group or significant category of individuals that desire the existence of this a chilling effect? > > Not so far as I’m aware. > > No SUV owner desires the creation of a greenhouse effect or the melting of the polar icecaps, either. In fact, no group does. > > Huh. Most not be any global warming problem then, right? Then would it be fair to paraphrase your positition as: _The movement to stop unconstitutional government participation in religion has an unintended chilling effect on constitutional religious activity._ Because that seems quite different from your [OP](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7049170&postcount=1) ( **my emphasis** added): > [@Bricker](#): > > **War on Christmas - revisited** > > 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. ---
**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:** [February 7, 2006, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/392 "2006-02-07T23:51:41Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > As far as I know, this part of things is completely one sided. The unwashed nutjob hordes did threaten boycotts against “Happy Holidays” offenders. But no group threatened counter boycotts if places like Target caved into this pressure. Around Christmas, there was an example in Raleigh of a woman who objected to Crabtree Valley Mall’s Merry Christmas wishes, IIRC. She was roundly ridiculed on these boards and in the national media, and Crabtree rightly ignored her protest. That’s the only example I’ve heard of, and I think the cultural response to it demonstrates that campaigns against private Christmas celebrations are not remotely effective, indeed are likely to have the opposite effect in which people deliberately patronize a business offering such celebrations. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/393 "2006-02-08T01:09:53Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I would suggest to these ‘businessmen’ that they stop trying to deny acknowledging the reason for their biggest sales season of the year…and that would be _Christmas_. People don’t flock to the stores to buy gifts in such huge numbers for any reason other than that _it’s_ _Christmas_. I’m not a religious fanatic by a long shot, but the hypocracy and PC cowardice that underlies this sudden (and therefore perceived as concerted) effort on the part of merchants to eliminate the word Christmas from public view is offensive on several levels and will most likely to backfire on them bigtime next year. Alternatively, since they are succeeding in making money every year without bothering to pander to Gibson, O’Reilly, and Falwell, then there is not really any hypocrisy involved except on the parts of Gibson, O’Reilly, Falwell, and their ilk. Merchants are in business to make money. If this silliness had any relationship to profits, it would have already made itself felt. The phrase (and attendant hype) is over five years old. Aside from letting Gibson, O’Reilly, and Falwell line their pockets with sales of their own hypocrisy-based pleas, it has not actually resulted in either a renewed Christian spirituality or a shift in sales between merchants who use the word “holidays” and those who use the word “Christmas.” The change has not been “sudden,” except in geological terms. I have already pointed out that “Put Christ Back Into Christmas” predated the birth of several participants in this thread and that a review of popular entertainment demonstrates that the public has failed to support _religious_ themed offerings for fifty years or more. If this (glacially) sudden change was supposed to backfire on them, then it should have already begun to happen. I suspect that you are in error. > [@Shodan](#): > > I was commenting on the one where the ACLU sent the letter, and it wound up in court. As I mentioned. > > I didn’t ignore anything. Your statement that I did was false. If it makes you feel better to pretend that you did not deliberately refer to one of two parallel examples, ignoring its counterpart while claiming that the one proved some point, then you are welcome to your warm feelings. Of course, you also had to ignore the fact that the decision of the council was made deliberately to flout the law, making a lawsuit more likely, but then I suspect you need to take that approach to maintain your level of comfort, as well. * * * **Bricker** , I am still not seeing your point. From my perspective, we have a general societal trend in which a more pluralistic society tends to drift away from all religious themes (meaning that a diminution of “Christmas” references is simply part of a _general_ decline in religious references and not aimed at Christmas. We also have a general trend (perhaps reinforced by the former) to insist on a more rigorous implementation of the Establishment Clause, so that religious Christmas themes are opposed when governments attempt to continue to entangle them. Again, Christmas is not a target, but is simply one of many visible signs of a movement that is not directed against Christmas. As to letters from the ACLU, I am puzzled why queries regarding Christmas are supposed to have seriously chilling effects while letters (and actual lawsuits) supporting the rights of individuals have no similar power to cause entities behave correctly. To me, that seems to be more cherry picking. When the ACLU opposes public display it is scary but when it defends private display it is a creampuff. Somehow that seems odd. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/394 "2006-02-08T01:19:42Z")
**tom~** said: > [@](#): > > I have already pointed out that “Put Christ Back Into Christmas” predated the birth of several participants in this thread and that a review of popular entertainment demonstrates that the public has failed to support religious themed offerings for fifty years or more. Come to think of it, I haven’t seen anyone respond to this salient point. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/395 "2006-02-08T01:20:00Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I have to say **Bricker** , I am a bit confused about the ACLU’s role in this “war”. You see becuase they have done things like [suing to allow a student to hand out candy canes with religious messages](http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html). That, to me at least, constitutes fighting to protect Christmas in the public sphere. It seems as though the ACLU is fighting on both sides of this “war”. Do you disagree? Yes, I agree. I can imagine an SUV owner who writes his Congressman to urge passage of the Kyoto protocols, too. That’s not the best analogy here. The ACLU is, I think, internally consistent. Some of what they stand for constitutes an attack on Christmas. Some is neutral with respect to Christmas, and some is favorable towards Christmas. Perhaps a better analogy is this: I support the general liberal position on the death penalty. I am opposed to the general liberal position on minimum wage. What is my position vis-a-vis liberals? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/396 "2006-02-08T01:27:09Z")
> [@ThePCapeman](#): > > Then would it be fair to paraphrase your positition as: _The movement to stop unconstitutional government participation in religion has an unintended chilling effect on constitutional religious activity._ > > Because that seems quite different from your [OP](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7049170&postcount=1) ( **my emphasis** added): Yes, I think that would be a fair restatement. Frankly, I woiuld not have agreed with that restatement at the beginning of the thread, but as the discussion has developed it’s become clear to me that this is a large part of what’s happening. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/397 "2006-02-08T01:28:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > **Bricker** , I am still not seeing your point. Does my previous post, and the cogent restatement by **ThePCapeman** clear things up? ---
**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:** [February 8, 2006, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/398 "2006-02-08T01:35:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I agree. > > I can imagine an SUV owner who writes his Congressman to urge passage of the Kyoto protocols, too. > > That’s not the best analogy here. Agreed, that’s a poor analogy. In the time it took you to acknowledge that, you could have deleted the line altogether. > [@](#): > > The ACLU is, I think, internally consistent. Some of what they stand for constitutes an attack on Christmas. Some is neutral with respect to Christmas, and some is favorable towards Christmas. Instead of looking at how the ACLU’s actions affect “Christmas”, try examining whether the ACLU is consistent in defending civil liberties. > [@](#): > > Perhaps a better analogy is this: I support the general liberal position on the death penalty. I am opposed to the general liberal position on minimum wage. What is my position vis-a-vis liberals? Do you believe that supporting civil liberties in general makes one a liberal? What would that say about conservatives in America today? ---
**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:** [February 8, 2006, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/399 "2006-02-08T01:41:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I think that would be a fair restatement. Frankly, I woiuld not have agreed with that restatement at the beginning of the thread, but as the discussion has developed it’s become clear to me that this is a large part of what’s happening. Hmm. I think I can agree with that restatement, with the caveat that I think the effect is pretty small, especially when compared to how big media pundits are making it out to be. But yeah, it happens. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/400 "2006-02-08T01:51:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I think that would be a fair restatement. Frankly, I woiuld not have agreed with that restatement at the beginning of the thread, but as the discussion has developed it’s become clear to me that this is a large part of what’s happening. I applaud your frankness, **Bricker**. I think you have demonstrated that there is likely an unintended chilling effect. This only leads me to more questions… _To what degree?_ _So what?_ _Whose fault is that?_ But these are probably best left to other threads. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=21)