# 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:** 27
**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, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/521 "2006-02-10T19:26:26Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > **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. How is that different than the ACLU threatening a lawsuit because THEY feel it’s the morally right thing to do? ---
**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, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/522 "2006-02-10T19:27:35Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. Is the intent material in this instance? I’ve just gotten through agreeing that the intent of the people that push Christmas-themed celebrations and symbols away is not relevant; they may be sincere and earnest or they may be furious anti-religionists; the question, as many people have insisted in this thread, is whether their point is valid. But now you’re telling me that the intent of one guy in the name change is of primary significance. How so? I thought the focus was supposed to be on the result – and in that case, the NAME “CHRISTMAS” ON THE CALENDAR WAS LEGAL. ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/523 "2006-02-10T19:28:50Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. I don’t agree. I think it’s occurring frequently enough that it’s an issue. I think the default assumption is that every instance of an office party being renamed a Winter Party vice Christmas Party is part of this phenomenon. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/524 "2006-02-10T19:36:19Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. Except his claim is meaningless if Angry Atheists aren’t anti-Christmas. He might as well say “there are hordes of scrapbooking enthusiasts who are against Christmas”, and when asked to come up with an example of one, come up with an example of a scrapbooking enthusiast, thus proving that scrapbooking enthusiasts exist. Yes, there are atheists. Yes, some of them strongly disagree with Christians on some issues, including issues of public policy and the constitution. But as far as I can tell, **Bricker** and **Starving Artist** are just assuming that some of those atheists, motivated purely by their malignant hatefulness, are also anti-Christmas (and not just in theory, but in word and deed), with no evidence to support that claim. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/525 "2006-02-10T19:36:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How is that different than the ACLU threatening a lawsuit because THEY feel it’s the morally right thing to do? It seems as though everyone has lost track of what you’re arguing, and that’s come to include you :). Here’s what I was responding to: > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. (emphasis added). It’s different because they didn’t do it over a threat of being sued. > [@](#): > > Is the intent material in this instance? I agree that it’s not, and that’s why I’m saying that this is the strongest example you’ve offered. However, when someone offers an unacceptable motivation for an acceptable action, there’s a decent chance that their unacceptable motive has led them to take other, unacceptable actions. In the bit you quoted, my argument wasn’t that the dude’s theocratic motive made his act illegal; it was that his theocratic motive made it likely that he’d done something additional that had led to the ACLU’s threat. **samclem’s** details of the case make me think that maybe the ACLU did overreach in this case. > [@](#): > > think the default assumption is that every instance of an office party being renamed a Winter Party vice Christmas Party is part of this phenomenon. Why on god’s green earth would this be the default assumption, assuming that the phenomenon we’re talking about is still taht people do it because of “concern over being sued”? Why wouldn’t the default assumption be that people make the change in order to make their Jewish, Hindu, and other nonChristian employees, students, and clients feel more welcomed? Why, in other words, not make the default assumption be charitable rather than fearful? Daniel ---
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/526 "2006-02-10T20:12:47Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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? It’s not actually in the text, you see. But it’s just ceremonial religion without any meaning. And, as everybody knows, ceremonial deism is allowed by that fuzzy gray area of stuff _around_ the text. That, uh, (looks for a good word - ahhh) **penumbra**. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/527 "2006-02-10T20:17:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Would you at least agree that this formulation is woefully incomplete when describing the debate, given that it stripped of the context of a vocal movement that wishes to establish a Christian Nation? Otherwise, this is like scoring a boxing match where you only ever call points for one of the boxers, and examples of one side going too far have no contrast in what prompted the overreactions. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > **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. Imagine that. Moral behavior. From people who seem to believe that their religion is more than a means of marking territory. ---
**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, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/528 "2006-02-10T20:28:24Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > It’s not actually in the text, you see. But it’s just ceremonial religion without any meaning. And, as everybody knows, ceremonial deism is allowed by that fuzzy gray area of stuff _around_ the text. That, uh, (looks for a good word - ahhh) **penumbra**. The court decisions that permit ceremonial deism do not once take refuge in penumbras or emanations. They simply apply the plain text of the law: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That’s what the text says. And in the case of ceremonial deism, Congress is not making a law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Simple analysis. Possible even for liberals who need penumbras before they think the Constitution means something. ---
**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, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/529 "2006-02-10T20:33:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “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. Historically, “In God We Trust” was, indeed, intended to indicate the endorsement of religion, having been first placed on coinage as a response to a [religious appeal](http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml). The Supreme Court has ruled (with their odd and sacriligious notion of “ceremonial deism”), that such placement is _legal_. However, there is no reason that I can see to claim that it is appropriate. ---
**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, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/530 "2006-02-10T21:33:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The court decisions that permit ceremonial deism do not once take refuge in penumbras or emanations. They simply apply the plain text of the law: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That’s what the text says. And in the case of ceremonial deism, Congress is not making a law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Simple analysis. Possible even for liberals who need penumbras before they think the Constitution means something. I should have included a smiley. I was being tongue-in-cheek. You are, of course, absolutely correct in saying that no penumbra or emanations are needed. SCOTUS has simply authorized a few clear violations of the plain text of the Amendment. How can you say that a law, passed by Congress, mandating a religious message as the nation’s motto is not a law respecting an establishment of religion? ---
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/531 "2006-02-10T21:35:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And in the case of ceremonial deism, Congress is not making a law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Simple analysis. Snort. That “analysis” is nothing of the sort; it’s simply declaring that what is patently a symbol or practice of a religion does not, in fact, include any religious content. The pro-comminglement parties in those cases would not likely be willing to admit that they were actually promoting the \*absence \* of religion. Or is that simply the abhorred judicial activism, judges allowing the insertion of religion into places the Constitution forbids? > [@](#): > > Possible even for liberals who need penumbras before they think the Constitution means something. Setting the unbecoming \*ad hominem \* aside, right next to your well-poisoning attempts, you do need to show what this alleged “legal analysis” is before simply declaring it so and therefore yourself a “winner”. Note, in passing, that if the current status of your still-inchoate argument depends upon the assertion that the government-sponsored elements of Christmas events etc. in fact have no religious content, as the “ceremonial deism” dodge requires, then you’d better be able to explain which ones do and on what basis one can draw the line. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/532 "2006-02-10T21:36:22Z")
I say we switch over to a war on groundhogs day, that little rodent popping to see it’s shadow(or not) creeps me out. Russell ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/533 "2006-02-10T22:08:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Snort. That “analysis” is nothing of the sort; it’s simply declaring that what is patently a symbol or practice of a religion does not, in fact, include any religious content. The pro-comminglement parties in those cases would not likely be willing to admit that they were actually promoting the \*absence \* of religion. Or is that simply the abhorred judicial activism, judges allowing the insertion of religion into places the Constitution forbids? I think this thread is one of the silliest, tedious, and overlong in the history of this board. However, the issue of what constitutes an “establishment” of religion is not as cut and dried as you seem to think. FWIW, I think the founders had a completely different idea of what constitutes an “establishment” of religion than that of current jurisprudence. ---
**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, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/534 "2006-02-10T22:10:39Z")
The lack of a discussion about such nuances heretofore is one of the main reasons this thread has been so ridiculous. If you can expound upon that some more, with some explanations and not just citations, that would help all of us immensely - **Bricker** most certainly not excepted. ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/535 "2006-02-10T22:22:19Z")
For Cripe’s Sake, **Bricker** , what do I have to do get you to respond to my posts (in this case, #515)… ? In particular, are you going to either defend or withdraw the claim that you’ve made that not only are there angry atheists who might want to see less public Christmas, there are angry atheists who actually want Christmas to cease to exist, and/or want it to end up completely devoid of religious meaning. This is a VERY INFLAMMATORY CLAIM, and I’d like you to either defend it, clarify it, or abandon it. > [@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, (bolding mine) ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/536 "2006-02-10T22:26:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The lack of a discussion about such nuances heretofore is one of the main reasons this thread has been so ridiculous. If you can expound upon that some more, with some explanations and not just citations, that would help all of us immensely - **Bricker** most certainly not excepted. Establishment Clause jurisprudence is one of the most convoluted, bizarre areas of the law. It seems every judge has a different view not only of what “establishment” means, but also which test to use to determine whether it is violated. The First Congress, which proposed the Bill of Rights, had prayers before legislative sessions, and even provided funding to Christian missions working in the territories. At least some of the founders (which highlights the silliness of originalism), did not have the same feelings regarding what constitutes an “establishment” of religion as current jurisprudence indicates. I guess what I’m trying, not so well, to say is that this area of law is a mess and it is nigh but impossible to discuss the issue without a fact intensive determination. I think what **Bricker** may be saying is that kind of fact intensive determinations has the “chilling effect” of governmental agencies that would like to avoid any controversy. As a point, it’s mind bogglingly stupid to overhype it as a " War on Christmas", and still deserves little more than a “so fucking what” response, but it’s his point, maybe he can make it better. ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/537 "2006-02-10T23:00:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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. > > I look forward to your direct response. > > Regards, > Shodan Sigh…Okay, Shodan… > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by 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. > [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by 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? at·tack ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-tk) v. at·tacked, at·tack·ing, at·tacks v. tr. To set upon with violent force. To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner. To start work on with purpose and vigor: attack a problem. To begin to affect harmfully: a disease that attacks the central nervous system. I don’t see anyone doing anything remotely fitting this definition with regard to christmas. I see people questioning religious representation in public schools and governement settings. I see people working diligently toward maintaining separation of church and state. I would say a valid way to determine intent (rather than just _accuse_ with nothing to \*back up \* that accusation) would be for a group to say, “Damnit, we’ve had it with christmas and christ and christianity and we’re going to start a systematic dismantling of christmas and everything near and dear to the christian heart.” Then everyone would sign on with them and we’d go around with Sharpie pens – changing all the calendars and tearing out designated pages of sheet music. Could a group start a covert movement to bring down christmas? Certainly. But I’m sure those holiday watchdogs would sniff them out and expose them as the godless heathens they are. In this case, no…there is nothing but defense of SoCaS to be inferred here. If you \*really \* can’t see that, then the rudiments of SoCaS and the rights of religious freedom of expression are being willfully ignored by you. ---
**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, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/538 "2006-02-10T23:06:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “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. Well, then we get back to the bullshit definition of “God” (the same one AA uses) being “not necessarily religious”. It’s not a specific religion, but it’s religious alright. It’s wrong, but compared to more dangerous forms of religion in government, it’s on my back burner…for now. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/539 "2006-02-10T23:48:16Z")
Since you’re in the mood to answer questions you’ve ignored up to now, **Kalhoun** , how about answering the quetion I put to you previously; to wit: _“Do you also believe that, given the fact that we celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25, merchants should have the right to advertise Christmas sales and to display the word Christmas in their stores as this date approaches? Do you believe it’s just fine to advertise items for Christmas on the television and radio? Do you believe people have the right to wish each other a Merry Christmas in public venues? In short, do you think we have the right to speak, advertise and display items regarding Christmas in the same way that we do Thanksgiving, the 4th of July and Memorial Day, or do you think public advertising, display and mention of Christmas should be suppressed because it’s insensitive to people of other religions, or to those who are atheists, or to those who feel Christianity is an impediment to social change that they favor? Or are these things, as I suspect, what you are talking about when you allege we think we ‘own’ the day?”_ **Zoe** & **Seige** , I saw your posts and will try to answer them later, as I’ve only skimmed them and am on the way out the door right now. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/540 "2006-02-11T00:01:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Including the post where I said there was NOT a war on Christmas? And including the post in which I said the ACLU was been supportive of Christmas? Did you read those posts? If they are in this thread I have read them. Why don’t you, for clarity’s sake, state clearly what your current position on this matter is? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=28)