# 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:** 26
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/501 "2006-02-10T14:31:46Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > They may be legal, but they’re not legitimate. How do you know? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/502 "2006-02-10T14:35:53Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > …such as? Such as the decision by Eugene, Oregon, to ban Christmas trees. Such as the fight over renaming the Christmas holiday the winter holiday and vice-versa in Covington, Georgia. And the decision to permit students to distribute religiously-themed materials on their own time in Plano, Texas. All those issues were initially cast in a far more restrictive manner than the law requires. And that was a result of concern over being sued. Thus, the fight for separation of church and state has a chilling effect on legitimate expressions of Christmas and religion in public schools and government. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/503 "2006-02-10T14:43:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What would you say is a valid way to determine intent? Do the people involved have to specifically mention a desire to harm, or can it be inferred from their actions? > > Regards, > Shodan Why don’t you tell me how an attempt to defend the concept of separation of church and state can be considered an “attack.” There’s a huge and obvious difference between the two. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/504 "2006-02-10T14:54:50Z")
I read **Ludovic** ’s “Such as?” question as referring to “legitimate expressions of religion in public schools and government settings”, not to opposition to them, whatever they might be. So what \*are \* those “legitimate” violations of the Establishment Clause, Counselor? What is this principle of constitutional law, where is this precise separation, you claim exists and is being violated by these repeated “attacks” (or whatever term you’re using now, if in fact you have a coherent position at all?) ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/505 "2006-02-10T15:26:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Such as the decision by Eugene, Oregon, to ban Christmas trees. Such as the fight over renaming the Christmas holiday the winter holiday and vice-versa in Covington, Georgia. And the decision to permit students to distribute religiously-themed materials on their own time in Plano, Texas. All those issues were initially cast in a far more restrictive manner than the law requires. And that was a result of concern over being sued. Thus, the fight for separation of church and state has a chilling effect on legitimate expressions of Christmas and religion in public schools and government. YOU say they’re legitimate. If it is government sponsorship of religion, it’s illegitimate. Only someone who wants government to support THEIR religion would think otherwise. ---
**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 10, 2006, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/506 "2006-02-10T15:46:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Such as the decision by Eugene, Oregon, to ban Christmas trees. Such as the fight over renaming the Christmas holiday the winter holiday and vice-versa in Covington, Georgia. And the decision to permit students to distribute religiously-themed materials on their own time in Plano, Texas. All those issues were initially cast in a far more restrictive manner than the law requires. And that was a result of concern over being sued. Thus, the fight for separation of church and state has a chilling effect on legitimate expressions of Christmas and religion in public schools and government. **Bricker** , I think you’re frankly wrong here. In Eugene, as I quoted earlier, it was religious folk who called for this change to be made, not out of a fear of lawsuits, but because they thought it was morally the right thing to do. In Covington you may be right–but the overtly religious reasons the superintendent (?) gave for wanting to change the name to Christmas make me suspect there was more going on here than we heard about. The ACLU is not in a habit of threatening lawsuits simply over then name “Christmas Holiday”; I suspect that the lawsuit had more to it than that. And in Plano, the prohibition against students distributing materials was religiously-neutral and was instigated for pedagogical reasons, not thread-of-lawsuit reasons. As I said, this chilling effect may occasionally occur (if the Covington case has nothing more to it than we first see, it’s a good example), but I think it’s extremely rare, and in most of the cases wher you’re claiming that it occurs, you’re wrong. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/507 "2006-02-10T16:18:56Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > \ In Covington you may be right–but the overtly religious reasons the superintendent (?) gave for wanting to change the name to Christmas make me suspect there was more going on here than we heard about. The ACLU is not in a habit of threatening lawsuits simply over then name “Christmas Holiday”; I suspect that the lawsuit had more to it than that. \ You bet it did. Some info from the Atlanta Constitution at the time: > [@](#): > > The school board is eschewing “political correctness” — and the advice of its lawyer — and designating as “Christmas holidays” the two weeks schools are closed at the end of the year. The school calendar previously specified " winter holidays," a term commonly used by public school systems. > > “This is a Christian country and it is founded on Christian values with God in mind,” said board member Richard Tiede, who voted with the 3-2 majority for the name change Tuesday night. " ‘Winter holidays’ came as a result of political correctness." This was from a December 16, 1999 article. Then from a November 22, 2000 story > [@](#): > > The county school board Tuesday night voted 4-1 to change the reference to the winter holidays on its Web site and school literature from “Holidays- Christmas” to “Semester Break.” > > The Georgia chapter of The ACLU notified the board this week that it considered the reference to Christmas “an endorsement of a particular religion.” > > The school system mentioned Christmas on the calender for the first time this school year. Until last year, the calendar used the wording “winter holidays.” > > But the board added the Christmas designation after some board members complained that avoiding the holiday’s name smacked of "political correctness. " > > Board members who changed their votes said they had not changed their views; they simply wanted to avoid a costly, time-consuming legal tangle. > > Board member Richard Tiede, who changed his vote Tuesday, equated the ACLU’s lawsuit threat with extortion, saying the ACLU acted like the “mob in Chicago.” > > Board member John Douglas, the lone vote against the change Tuesday, and who initiated the pro-Christmas move last year, said “The ACLU gets what it wants through bullying and intimidation.” > > ACLU lawyer Craig Goodmark said Tuesday there probably would have been no protest if school employees had changed the wording behind the scenes. But because the board took a public vote in February to designate the holiday for Christmas, the change effectively endorsed Christianity in violation of the U. S. Constitution, Goodmark said. ---
**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 10, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/508 "2006-02-10T16:29:09Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > You bet it did. Some info from the Atlanta Constitution at the time: This was from a December 16, 1999 article. > > Then from a November 22, 2000 story Hmm. Not to argue against myself, but I’m not seeing anything in there that looks unjust on the schoolboard’s part. If, as I think, Christmas is also a secular holiday, there’s nothing wrong with talking about Christmas break. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/509 "2006-02-10T16:39:40Z")
I don’t really care if it’s Winter Holidays or Christmas Holidays, but the frank statement that they are naming it the Christmas Holiday due to the overwhelming Christian Heritage of America removes it from being a proactive attempt to eradicate religion from the public sphere into a legitimate question about SoCaS. Now, if the statement was just a one-off and does not represent the actual sentiments behind the renaming of the holiday, the renaming is fine by me. But let the courts decide that. ---
**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:** [February 10, 2006, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/510 "2006-02-10T16:52:11Z")
A Chilling Effect on Christmas is what happens when it’s -40 on Dec 25. This thread is beyond ridiculous, and yet somehow I am always compelled to open it. ---
**Author:** ![Papermache\_Prince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f05b48/32.png) [@Papermache\_Prince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Papermache_Prince)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/511 "2006-02-10T17:02:16Z")
Court TV is doing a series on the ACLU, beginning February 11th at noon, with an episode titled [Religious Freedom](http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/aclu/episodes/religious_freedom.html)The right of every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Abbey Moler, a high school valedictorian, was asked to include some words of wisdom in her yearbook and selected a Bible verse. When the yearbook was published, her choice was omitted. That led to her taking on the school district. Meet parents and teachers who were part of a recent lawsuit in Dover, Pa., to keep “intelligent design” out of the classroom, arguing that it is neither science nor religion. Also featured is Joann Bell, a devout Christian whose home was firebombed because she objected to her son’s school pressuring him to attend a prayer meeting. (Thanks to TomS who mentioned the program on Talk.origins.) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/512 "2006-02-10T17:24:29Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Why don’t you tell me how an attempt to defend the concept of separation of church and state can be considered an “attack.” There’s a huge and obvious difference between the two. Actually, I would prefer if you could answer the question. Considering the number of times that posters have become irate if they feel that the OP is dodging a question, I would hope you would not leave yourself open to the same charge. For the benefit of those who don’t read entire threads before they post to them, here is the exchange again. > [@Kalhoun](#): > > Bullshit yet again. If you don’t intend to do harm to an institution, it’s not an ATTACK. Attacks are premeditated with intent to harm. > [@Shodan](#): > > What would you say is a valid way to determine intent? Do the people involved have to specifically mention a desire to harm, or can it be inferred from their actions? I look forward to your direct response. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/513 "2006-02-10T17:27:06Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > I don’t really care if it’s Winter Holidays or Christmas Holidays, but the frank statement that they are naming it the Christmas Holiday due to the overwhelming Christian Heritage of America removes it from being a proactive attempt to eradicate religion from the public sphere into a legitimate question about SoCaS. > > Now, if the statement was just a one-off and does not represent the actual sentiments behind the renaming of the holiday, the renaming is fine by me. But let the courts decide that. I think we’re in “a pox on both your houses” situation. If indeed the ACLU is bullying schoolboards to rename Christmas vacation, because the C-word is oppressive to people…they’ve gone too far. If the schoolboard changes it back, in honor of the Christian Heritage of America…that was an incredibly stupid move. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/514 "2006-02-10T18:17:50Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > I think we’re in “a pox on both your houses” situation. If indeed the ACLU is bullying schoolboards to rename Christmas vacation, because the C-word is oppressive to people…they’ve gone too far. If the schoolboard changes it back, in honor of the Christian Heritage of America…that was an incredibly stupid move. Did you see Samclem’s post? It was winter holiday and had been for years. The board decided that “winter holidays” was PC run amok and changed it to Christmas for the express purpose (according to one board member) of emphasizing that this is a Christian country. At that point, the ACLU intervened. The ACLU lawyer even said that had they just changed the name quietly they probably wouldn’t have challenged. It was the public nature of the change that triggered the action. This is a perfect example of the Religious Right spoiling for a fight and then crying “oppression” when they get one. Dishonest fucktards. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/515 "2006-02-10T18:33:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of the three categories I mentioned as examples, “angry athiests” are by far the smallest. Michael Newdow is probably a good example of the genre. He seems angry. And I can well believe that he’s an atheist. But do you have any reason to believe that anything he has ever done in his entire life has had anything to do with Christmas? Please do not make the mistake of assuming that all atheists (or all non-Christians) share the same beliefs, or that all atheists take a position that is equally “anti-Christian” on all issues. For instance, start a thread entitled “resolved: ‘under God’ should not be in the Pledge” and see what the consensus among atheist dopers is. Then start a thread entitled “resolved: no mention of Christmas should ever be made outside of churches and private residences” and see what the consensus is. I myself have argued strenuously and at great length against ‘under God’ and against ‘in God we trust’, so far to little or no avail, but I also love going to my parents’ house for Christmas every year with the tree and the presents and my mom’s super-erudite Christmas music selections. Plus my dad makes latkes. > [@](#): > > The number of people is small. But they are significant, because one person’s lawsuit can cost thousands of dollar even for a simple dismissal, at the earliest stages. People file lawsuits about this issue. People file lawsuits about lots of issues. The existence of lawsuits, and the fear of them, sometimes causes people who fear getting sued to be overly cautious. Wow. Big newsflash. But you’ve made claims in this thread not just about the existence of angry atheists and their propensity to file lawsuits, but about their motivation and goals: > [@you](#): > > 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, To be very precise here, you’ve claimed that some people would like to be rid of Christmas entirely, and others would like to remove any tint of religious meaning from it. I find this claim (unless it refers to a super-irrelevantly-tiny-Phelpsian-minority) to be both incorrect and inflammatory. And I note that you have tossed it around a few times but not really defended it or given any evidence for the existence of such people. Certainly, of all the examples of so-called-WoC discussed in this thread, not one has been (as far as we can tell) motivated in any way at all by someone who was actually attempting to destroy Christmas entirely. > [@](#): > > The vast majority of actions arise from sincere people seeking to implement some version of the separation of church and state. That has an chilling effect on legitimate expressions of religion in public schools and government settings. I suppose that’s somewhat true, in a fairly trivial sense. But if that is ALL you’re talking about, then not only is the phrase “War on Christmas” invalid, but so is the word “attack” you keep using, and so is the alarm you seem to be feeling. > [@](#): > > But that mere fact that the “angry athiest” is the smallest contingent does not mean it’s imaginary. Here on the SDMB, there are people who would argue vociferously against “In God We Trust” on money, and “Under God” in the Pledge, despite the fact that those are legitimate, legal instances of government use of the word “God.” Which in no way at all implies anything about their stand vis a vis Christmas > [@](#): > > In our present discussion, I agree that the “AA” crowd is of little significance, however. Except perhaps as a Boogeyman. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/516 "2006-02-10T18:48:02Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > He [Michael Newdow] seems angry. And I can well believe that he’s an atheist. But do you have any reason to believe that anything he has ever done in his entire life has had anything to do with Christmas? In fairness, **Bricker** only cited him as a highly visible Angry Atheist, not as an opponent of Christmas. With the demise of Ms. O’Hair, I would say that Mr. Newdow is, indeed, the most visible (and, thus, representative) Angry Atheist in the country. ---
**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 10, 2006, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/517 "2006-02-10T19:02:27Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] What would you say is a valid way to determine intent? Do the people involved have to specifically mention a desire to harm, or can it be inferred from their actions?QUOTE] If I may answer: There are ways to determine intent: 1. If someone expresses their intent, then unless I have a reason to doubt them, I believe them. 2. If someone doesn’t express their intent, then I **try** (not always successfully) to assign the most benign plausible interpretation to their acts. Someone crosses to the other side of the street as I walk down it, and I assume they did so because they’ve got somewhere to go over there, not because they’re trying to avoid the incipient explosion from the bomb they’ve planted on this side of the street to kill me. 3. If someone has a history of behaving in a certain way that betrays malevolent intent (I’ve seen that person on the news as a suspect in a series of sidewalk bombings), I’m no longer so generous in my interpretation of their motives. 4. If someone’s acts taken as a whole do not permit a benevolent interpretation of their motives (they cross the street at a run, looking back at me and laughing maniacally and shouting, “See you in Hell!”), there’s no longer a plausible benign interpretation. How does this apply? The ACLU’s acts permit a benign interpretation when taken as a whole. We can plausibly interpret what they do as not being an attack on Christmas; indeed, I’d argue that such an interpretation is _implausible_, given their defense of Christmas celebrations in some cases. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/518 "2006-02-10T19:11:29Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > YOU say they’re legitimate. If it is government sponsorship of religion, it’s illegitimate. Only someone who wants government to support THEIR religion would think otherwise. “In God We Trust” on the money is not government sponsorship of religion. It’s legal AND legitimate. If you disagree, it’s for me to ask YOU to cite the authority that supports your position. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/519 "2006-02-10T19:18:07Z")
As if it hadn’t been pointed out to you enough times without response, that authority is the establishment clause of the First Amendment - in the Constitution whose strict textual interpretation you insist on in other contexts. You’ve said repeatedly that government can too dammit recognize religion, the Constitution notwithstanding. It’s time to show us the authority that lets you so, innit? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/520 "2006-02-10T19:23:54Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I would say that Mr. Newdow is, indeed, the most visible (and, thus, representative) Angry Atheist in the country. Are there any other visible “Angry Atheists” _at all?_ Is it helpful or even \*accurate \* to use the plural form? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=27)