# 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:** 4
**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, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/61 "2006-01-31T08:07:25Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > “War” is wrong because (to me, at least) “war” implies something organized and aimed and directed. If there’s a “war” there has to be an enemy, and an enemy army, and enemy generals. Even if there were lots of truly outrageous examples of things that could be called “attacks on Christmas”, I wouldn’t say it was a war unless there was some organization in some way promoting this position in a systematic and nationwide fashion. For instance, suppose that there were, tragically, two Columbine-style attacks in the same year, but totally unrelated to each other. Would it be meaningful to talk about the “War on High Schools”? I don’t agree. Consider “guerilla warfare.” It’s well understood that this phrase refers to irregular warfare conducted by independent units carrying out harassment and sabotage. There are no armies, no generals - and yet “warfare” is a well-accepted term. Now, if there were two Columbine-style attacks, I think it might indeed be crazy to talk about any “War on High Schools”. But if there were TEN in a year, then I don’t think it would be out of line for someone to describe this as a War on High Schools – or, perhaps, a War on Bullies, depending on one’s perspective. > [@](#): > > Worse than that, though, is the word “Christmas”. If there’s a war (or any other sort of attack) on something, and the war is won, what happens to the something? It’s conquered, destroyed, removed, blown away. If we win the war on drugs, it will mean there are no more illegal drugs. If we win the war on terror, it will be because there are no more terrorists. Thus, if there’s a war on Christmas, it seems logical that the people waging that war want to get rid of Christmas. Which is just preposterous. An effort (even if there WAS a unified national effort) to completely disentagle all public funds from any conceivable mention of Christmas is no more a “war on Christmas” than a push to start enforcing speed limits with more precision is a “war on cars” or a “war on drivers”. Well, again, “War on Christmas” is a short-hand phrase. 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, and others want to demonstrate their understanding and compliance with principles of “tolerance,” “diversity,” and “multiculturalism,” and are not really concerned with a particular end goal. So we have what amounts to guerilla warfare: independent units, each conducting harrassing, sabotaging missions, uncoordinated by any master plan, not sharing the same vision of an end goal. > [@](#): > > (2) More than that, the very way the issue is presented is divisive and insulting. There is an interesting tension in our society as to precisely where the line between church and state should go. Some reasonable people might think that a Christmas Tree (with no crosses or baby jesuses) on the steps of town hall is perfectly OK, others might disagree. But if you just say “reasonable people can disagree about the precise location of the line on this tough issue”, then you don’t get to be a part of the general right-wing orgy of self-congratulatory liberal-bashing which has made Anne Coulter so rich and successful. Something which I tend to think that **Bricker** is above. Reasonable people may certainly disagree on the specifics of this issue. And reasonable people may even use the courts – and even _threats_ of invoking the court system – to shape public policy consistent with their views. And reasonable people may participate in guerilla warfare, too. I grant you that “War on Christmas” is a title that is designed to paint the people on one side as less reasonable than the people on the other… **just as pro-life and pro-choice** are such titles. Even so, it’s not wrong to call an abortion opponent pro-life, and it’s not wrong to call an advocate of reproductive rights pro-choice. Nor is it wrong to call these actions, in the aggregate, 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, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/62 "2006-01-31T08:08:27Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Er, yes it is – it implies a central coordination where (by your own admission) none exists. In effect, it allows you to float a conspiracy theory without carrying the baggage of being known as a conspiracy theorist. Answered above. See “guerilla warfare.” ---
**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, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/63 "2006-01-31T08:23:41Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I’m afraid we cannot let you do that. The whole point of the “War on Christmas” silliness was an effort by one man to sell books and another man to sell air time. It only has meaning in the context of that phrase. If you wished to discuss some other topic, you should have made that the subject of the thread. Well, as I mentioned when I sarted this thread, one of the objections to “War on Christmas” was a general sense of “ain’t no such thing, whatsoever!” If we can agree that what I am describing exists, I believe we are in the position that early rhetors in the abortion wars (he said, only slightly tongue-in-cheek) must have been with regard to “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. Even today, I have seen pro-choice people on this very board rail against the use of “pro-life” to describe abortion opponents. Yet most people today acknowledge that this is a fair, if somewhat slanted, description of the concept. Ditto, of course, for “pro-choice” and the other side. > [@](#): > > OK. I have considered it. I will now laugh it right out of the thread. > Based on the history of “prayer in school” and “religion in school,” I suspect that the ACLU has threatened (or actually filed) more suits to protect individuals from administrative harrassment than to intimidate administrations into eliminating religion from people’s lives. From my reading of many stories on these topics, a school has typically done a pre-emptive ban on a student praying to himself or herself, wearing religious icons, or reading a work of scripture and the ACLU has had to threaten or file suit to get the administration to actually read the law and recognize that those individual acts are permitted. Generally those prohibitions have been imposed by ignorant administrations that have never actually read about the Lemon test. > So, how many suits has the ACLU filed or threatened regarding the content (or naming) of school concerts typically held in December? Without an actual number of suits filed or threatened in each direction, your hypothetical is little more than O’Reillyan rhetoric. I think your laughter is premature. (Hie yourself over to the _Four Kings_ studio audience; I think they could use you!) If I can show the threat of, let us say, six lawsuits in the past year, and actually six others filed or actively litigated, would you say that this is sufficient to raise the spectre I’m describing? I’d like to nail down some number first, lest I provide cites and be told, “Well, that’s a drop in the bucket; that doesn’t count!” ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/64 "2006-01-31T08:36:01Z")
Maybe someone should make the alternative case. There is a War on Decency and Honest Debate about Legitimate Policy Issues. Bricker is, unwittingly or not, part of this war. It seeks to politicize local conflicts, often by blaring them as headlines while leaving out crucial facts, as well as actively trying to create and exacerbate social conflict where once there was reasonable compromise. The purpose of this war is to flush money into the coffers of wealthy advocacy organizations, pundits, the Republican party, and conservative Christian activists. It’s about as sincere as anyone was about the fate of Terry Shiavo, who was a huge cause and money maker, but somehow, none of that money ever seems to have made it into the coffers, of say, paying for the life support of a poor person who will die without it. Currently, the hysteria revolves largely around stoking the paranoia or conservative Christians for partisan ends, and by playing along, people like Bricker sadly are allowing their one sacred religion to slide deeper and deeper into an actively shallow and partisan mockery. Some examples. Here’ STOPTHEACLU, part of Brickers coordinated or perhaps uncoordinated (via pirrana voodoo?) attack on the decency of honest debate and the good public name of his own faith. [http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006\_01\_22\_archive.html#113812467523099029](http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_01_22_archive.html#113812467523099029) A county tries to set up a situation in which there is a Christian nativity scene. The ACLU rightly demands that any such space be made freely available: a free speech zone. If Christians can put up their displays, anyone should be able to. The county then rather craftily gets around this by enacting a huge liability insurance clause that only the wealthy Christian churches can afford. The ACLU sues, calling this an undue burden on free speech. The county eradicates the zone. This is then billed by Brickers fellow travelers as the ACLU attempting and succesfully supressing Christianity. Another situation from recent memory: a student, backed by a Christian Nation advocacy organization, tries to start a Bible reading class during recess. The principle, who happens to have a Bible on her own desk, says that recess is not a group activity or reading time: it’s phys ed. Organizations like the agape press are ready, and blare “School bans Bible reading!” leaving out just about every key detail that places the principles actions in relevant context (for instance, that Bible reading is permitted during any student free time, Bible study groups are allowed at other times, etc.) Declaration of Indepedence banned is another great example. There have been conservative boycotts proposed of private businesses that use “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” (despite the fact that, hell, most people used and still use Happy Holidays interchangably with Merry Christmas before O’Reily and other of Brickers vast cabal came along to turn a joyus season into yet another tiresome political weapon: something no doubt that Christ will greatly reward these proud warriors for shitting on the faith for doing) I think the war, while the name I picked for it sucks, has far more substance, coordination, motive, than any war on Christmas. I can name hundreds of cases where the ACLU has defended the freedom of religious expression. Can Bricker name a single case that the many prominent Christian Nation legal firms have litigated that involve abusing and demeaning the very idea of religion by trying to turn it into some cheap political ploy or secretarian endorsement? ---
**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, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/65 "2006-01-31T08:41:13Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > I think the war, while the name I picked for it sucks, has far more substance, coordination, motive, than any war on Christmas. I can name hundreds of cases where the ACLU has defended the freedom of religious expression. Can Bricker name a single case that the many prominent Christian Nation legal firms have litigated that involve abusing and demeaning the very idea of religion by trying to turn it into some cheap political ploy or secretarian endorsement? Nope, can’t name a single case that fits the description above. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/66 "2006-01-31T11:50:07Z")
I agree with Diogenes, and would add that I believe the Religious Fanatics are so afraid that if everyone doesn’t believe as they do that they may be wrong and are afraid to look in to any other belief. The only war is in their minds. How did Christianity survive with out the celebration of Christmas for hundreds of years? Because the businesses that helped make Christmas the big celebration it is says "Happy Holidays; taking into consideration that there are people of many faiths that they do business with also celebrate holiday’s other then Christmas. The far religious right will consider themselves attacked unless they have a theocracy like the Taliban in Afghanistan. They want people to tolerate their religion but won’t tolerate others to have their beliefs. Fear is a big driver for a Fanatic…Hence the wisdom of our forefathers to have separation of church and state! Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/67 "2006-01-31T12:12:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I can show the threat of, let us say, six lawsuits in the past year, and actually six others filed or actively litigated, would you say that this is sufficient to raise the spectre I’m describing? I’d like to nail down some number first, lest I provide cites and be told, “Well, that’s a drop in the bucket; that doesn’t count!” Okay Bricker. Time to stop playing and lay all of your cards on the table. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2006, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/68 "2006-01-31T12:22:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nope, can’t name a single case that fits the description above. Oh. Oh. Let me! Let me! The Association of Christian Schools International and several California schools filed a lawsuit challenging the University of California’s policy not to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin’s theory of evolution. Specifically, at least one book published by Bob Jones University: [cite](http://www.economist.com/World/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5300912) Now, any chance I’ll get a response to post #36? **John Mace** , see my following post. The point was to demonstrate that “public sphere” =/= “government” and thus, it is necessary for Bricker to provide a definition so that we’ll know what 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:** [January 31, 2006, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/69 "2006-01-31T13:25:33Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > Okay Bricker. Time to stop playing and lay all of your cards on the table. So the goal-post crew can get busy moving? Why don’t we lock down the goal posts first? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/70 "2006-01-31T13:33:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So the goal-post crew can get busy moving? > > Why don’t we lock down the goal posts first? IOW, your post is your cite. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2006, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/71 "2006-01-31T13:42:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So the goal-post crew can get busy moving? > Why don’t we lock down the goal posts first? Speaking only for myself, I think that if you can find “six lawsuits in the past year, and actually six others filed or actively litigated” that would satisfy _me_. However, I’m going to put a caveat on it. None of the lawsuits can be against a governmental entity (as opposed to whatever the heck a “public sphere” entity is) alleging an improper endorsement of religion vis a vis the 1st Amendment since those lawsuits properly _should_ be brought. However, any lawsuits attacking Christmas just for the sake of attacking Christmas are fair game. Next up: We discuss the “War on Rational Thought” being propogated by the religious right. ---
**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, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/72 "2006-01-31T14:09:04Z")
There’re a whole lot of cogent questions and observations from the first page of this thread that have been overlooked by the OP, including, _inter alia_ **Kimstu’s** question regarding the public sphere. Before we talk about moving the goalposts, how 'bout you address some of the concerns that have been raised? After speaking to **Kimstu’s** question, you can take a look at the excellent posts of **Nature’s Call** [#16] and **CJJ** \* [#17], and then tackle **John Mace** [#18], **ThePCapeman** [#21], and **Diogenes** [#25]. To start. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/73 "2006-01-31T14:13:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, as I mentioned when I sarted this thread, one of the objections to “War on Christmas” was a general sense of “ain’t no such thing, whatsoever!” If we can agree that what I am describing exists… As I said earlier, if “what you are describing” refers to court cases involving the separation of church and state, then you are defining the “problem” into existence. It is an objective fact that such cases exist. There’s no moving of goalposts going on (yet), as you’re evading the establishment of the playing field. It feels like you want to play a game of _Gotcha!_ to me… As others have asked, can you provide a list of cases where participation of a government entity was not part of the objection? By analogy, would you consider the court case involving Roy Moore’s 10 commandments display at a federal courthouse part of a “War on Christianity”? Surely you concede that the courts are the proper place to decide the consitutional limits of the SoCaS? ---
**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, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/74 "2006-01-31T14:38:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’ll notice I said “red and green decorations” as opposed to red and green clothing. The former accurately reflects the policy of the Plano Scool District prior to the filing of the lawsuit, as your link makes plain. O’Reilly may have distorted the story to refer to clothing; I was working from the complaint, and reported it correctly. No, actually, [the former does not accurately reflect the policy of teh Plano School District](http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121405dnmetoreilly.129ac712.html): > [@Dallas News](#): > > Mr. Abernathy [an attorney for the school system] said that the district did not ban red and green napkins and that the letter, sent by a parent teacher association, asked for white because it was a winter party and white signifies snow. What **really** happened in this case, near as I can make out, is that: 1. Some kid wanted to give out candy-cane pens at a holiday party, pens that were emblazoned with explicitly religious messages. 2. The school forbade it. 3. The parents complained. 4. The school district reversed the teacher and allowed religious messages to be distributed at the party. 5. The lawsuit, for some reason that I cannot determine, is continuing. Why am I picking on this case? Because I suspect that much of the “war on Christmas” comes down to such trivialities. Yes, a school district may have come down on the wrong side of the first amendment by prohibiting a child from distributing a religious message during a school-sanctioned event. But what actually happened is a very far cry from the school’s prohibiting red and green decorations, much less prohibiting red and green clothing. Daniel ---
**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, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/75 "2006-01-31T14:49:21Z")
We’re well into the second page of this discussion, and numerous posters have asked **Bricker** to clarify his use of the term “public sphere”. I’m curious as well. Perhaps he is reluctant to do so because it would compromise the validity of his use of the term “War on Christmas”. It is telling that the other “Wars” that have been devised, i.e. “War on Terror”, “War on Poverty”, “War on Drugs” etc. all seem have been conducted by _government entities_. On the other hand, the so-called “War on Christmas” reflects citizen action, through individual or group initiative, to keep government from endorsing a particular religion. But it’s hard to rally the troops on the basis of countering citizen action, so we have the specter of a “War” by the Godless. It would be more apt to refer to a “War on Evolution”, since it _is_ largely government bodies (state legislatures and boards of education) that are pushing to minimize the importance of evolution and introduce non-scientific alternatives. Yet I don’t like the sound of a “War on Evolution”, or any of the other “Wars” for that matter. They trivialize actual wars (such as the undeclared one we are fighting in Iraq) and the sufferings of those involved in such conflicts. So enough of “War On \_\_\_”. This terminology demeans those who fight actual wars, and promotes extreme tactics by those quarreling over a particular issue (all’s fair in “War”, after all). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/76 "2006-01-31T15:08:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If we can agree that what I am describing exists If you could provide \*any \* real examples _whatsoever_, you might have a point we could discuss. But nobody here appears ready to validate anyone else’s fantasies, and nothing you’ve posted here so far under the guise of fact is indeed factual. Nothing. > [@](#): > > If I can show the threat of, let us say, six lawsuits in the past year, and actually six others filed or actively litigated, would you say that this is sufficient to raise the spectre I’m describing? \*Can \* you do so? It’s high time you provided some factual basis for discussion, wouldn’t you say? It looks like you’re simply abandoning the problem of defining your terms, hoping it will simply go away, so soon after declaring it a “good place to start”. Will you give us all the courtesy of doing so explicitly? Your desire to discuss your topic in good faith is not at all apparent. ---
**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, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/77 "2006-01-31T15:12:00Z")
The parents’ sworn declaration in support of their lawsuit alleges that red and green decorations were prohibited. It’s entirely plausible that the school district will now say that this was not their policy. Nonetheless, “no red and green decorations” are precisely what the principal told the parents the policy was. But for the parents’ lawsuit, the actual policy may never have come to light, and the principal’s mistaken statement of policy would have been left unchallenged. You’re attacking the wrong argument. Many of the “policies” that constitute what I am calling the “War on Christmas,” are NOT valid… they either contravene official policies, extend official policies inappropriately, or fly in the face of established Supreme Court precedent. My point is: these invalid policies, these misstatements, these errors, are out there, and they are in the aggregate having an effect on the Christmas holiday. ---
**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, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/78 "2006-01-31T15:18:01Z")
The very trend of “winter party” is not required by any law or case. No Constitutional offense happens if a school district decides to call their event a Christmas party. BUT - when a school district, BELIEVING that “Christmas party” makes them vulnerable to litigation, chooses to rename their event to “winter party,” then what I am complaining of has occurred. ---
**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, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/79 "2006-01-31T15:21:02Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > We’re well into the second page of this discussion, and numerous posters have asked **Bricker** to clarify his use of the term “public sphere”. I’m curious as well. I was unaware that “public sphere” had a technical meaning in the world of critical theory. I was using the phrase simply to mean: in public. It was intended to encompass public schools, federal, state, and local government action, and privately owned businesses that are “places of public accomodation” within the meaning of civil rights laws. > [@](#): > > It would be more apt to refer to a “War on Evolution”, since it _is_ largely government bodies (state legislatures and boards of education) that are pushing to minimize the importance of evolution and introduce non-scientific alternatives. If you said there’s a war on evolution… I’d agree. ---
**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, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/80 "2006-01-31T15:30:34Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > you can take a look at the excellent posts of **Nature’s Call** [#16] and **CJJ** \* [#17], and then tackle **John Mace** [#18], **ThePCapeman** [#21], and **Diogenes** [#25]. To start. Nature’s Call post 316 suggests that this is merely part of the on-going evolution of Christmas. That may be true. It doesn’t negate the fact that people, and groups, are creating this “evolution” through use of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits. This is a change from the past. That is, I’m referring not to the change in how we celebrate Christmas, but a change in how we change the celebration of Christmas. And because this method of change is contentious, and involves adversarial court action or the threat of it, “War” is appropriate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=5)