# 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:** 6
**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, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/101 "2006-01-31T16:38:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > People who recognize this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country are seeking to reduce the influence Christian symbols have. I am contending that one of the weapons used in this turbulent situation is the threat of litigation – and becuase of the costs of litigation, it’s a potent weapon. Working on the assumption that despite appearances, I’m not actually on your ignore list. I think it would be better phrased as “People who recognize this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country are seeking stricter enforcement of the 1st Amendment regarding the government sponsoring or sanctioning the influence of Christian symbols.” Given this, what weapon other than threatened or actual litigation do they have? Note, I asked the same question in post #36 and never received a response. ---
**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:** [January 31, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/102 "2006-01-31T16:39:31Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Frankly, the Christian Right’s war on sex seems far more harmful to me, wouldn’t you agree? If trying to rprevent government resources from going to promote a religious holiday counts as a war on Christmas, then trying to prevent network television from showing breasts surely counts as a war on sex. > > It’s a very silly term. > > Daniel Why stop at calling it a “war?” Since we’re apparently allowed to redefine terms in any manner we feel like, why don’t we call it, “The Holocaust On Boobies?” We should start by defining our terms. By “holocaust,” I just mean any attempt to keep boobies off of saturday morning TV. If we can agree that such attempts exist then we can agree that there is indeed a Holocaust on Boobies going on in this country. ---
**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, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/103 "2006-01-31T16:44:07Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Can you cite the claim that the principal told the parents that this was the policy? [Yes:](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=14553) > [@](#): > > The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Sherman charged that the district had engaged in “unconstitutional and illegal actions,” ranging from prohibiting candy canes and pencils with religious messages to banning red-and-green napkins at holiday parties. [Here:](http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19738) > [@](#): > > “They asked [parents] to bring white napkins, white paper plates and white icing,” he said. “… Then they said, 'All other items shouldn’t be brought because **it would violate the school policy against distribution of things without school approval**.” ---
**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, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/104 "2006-01-31T16:45:18Z")
The interview with the parents appears in John Gibson’s book, and is not available on-line. However, it supports the allegations in the lawsuit, and specifically recounts a meeting between the parents that would become the plaintiffs and the principal in which the principal told them no red and green napkins or plates would be permitted, as a matter of school policy. ---
**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, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/105 "2006-01-31T16:47:14Z")
My oh my, **Bricker** , if I could take as true all the allegations brought in all the complaints I see filed… (Which is another reason why your “What if I could show you six actions filed in court against Christmas” thing is meaningless. The kinds of stupid-ass lawsuits that are brought and thrown out every day beggars the imagination.) Also, I’d still love a response to my post on the (now) previous page. Thanks! 🙂 ---
**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, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/106 "2006-01-31T16:48:22Z")
> [@](#): > > The interview with the parents appears in John Gibson’s book, and is not available on-line. I just love the fact that you (apparently) own John Gibson’s book. That really tickles me. ---
**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, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/107 "2006-01-31T16:48:26Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Working on the assumption that despite appearances, I’m not actually on your ignore list. > > I think it would be better phrased as “People who recognize this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country are seeking stricter enforcement of the 1st Amendment regarding the government sponsoring or sanctioning the influence of Christian symbols.” Given this, what weapon other than threatened or actual litigation do they have? Note, I asked the same question in post #36 and never received a response. That’s a perfectly fine weapon to use… in a war against Christmas. Certainly you may call it “seeking stricter enforcement of the 1st amendment,” and that would not be wrong… just as it’s not wrong to call a person “pro-choice” even though one side of the debate might prefer “pro-abortion” or even “pro-baby-killing.” ---
**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, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/108 "2006-01-31T16:49:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > the principal told them no red and green napkins or plates would be permitted, as a matter of school policy. And that’s what you call a “war”. This isn’t even worth Pitting. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/109 "2006-01-31T16:49:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > People who recognize this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country are seeking to reduce the influence Christian symbols have. I am contending that one of the weapons used in this turbulent situation is the threat of litigation – and becuase of the costs of litigation, it’s a potent weapon. So why is wrong to call it a war on Christmas? Because all of the litigation has been aimed at specific entanglement of government and religion and has not been directed against any other Christmas displays that were outside the realm of government? And because they have been directed against all governmental entanglement with religion (prayers in school, Ten Commandments on courtroom walls, teaching of religious beliefs in biology classes, etc.) and not directed toward Christmas, specifically? Theere is no war and if you still insist on calling it a war it is not directed against Christmas. ---
**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, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/110 "2006-01-31T16:49:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [Yes:](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=14553) > > [Here:](http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19738) **Bricker** , I asked for a cite that the principal had said any such thing. As near as I can tell, neither of your cites qualify. This is important because there’s a difference between something being asked by the PTA and being asked by the principal: the former is not, as near as I know, a government employee. If the principal told them, for example, that the party was a PTA affair and that private groups holding events on school grounds could determine teh color scheme for their events, the principal again acted in an appropriate manner. That’s why I want to see something specifically citing what the principal told them. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/111 "2006-01-31T16:50:29Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > My oh my, **Bricker** , if I could take as true all the allegations brought in all the complaints I see filed… (Which is another reason why your “What if I could show you six actions filed in court against Christmas” thing is meaningless. The kinds of stupid-ass lawsuits that are brought and thrown out every day beggars the imagination.) > > Also, I’d still love a response to my post on the (now) previous page. Thanks! 🙂 What reason have you to believe that the allegations are NOT true? The school district has now clarified its policy; they contend that the policy was never as the parents describe but they do NOT contend that the parents’ version of the meeting with the principal is wrong. ---
**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, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/112 "2006-01-31T16:50:45Z")
**Bricker:** > [@](#): > > That’s a perfectly fine weapon to use… in a war against Christmas. So if someone (a) is a practicing Christian, (b) celebrates both the secular and religious aspects of the Christmas holiday, and © supports (or initiates!) a lawsuit to force a city to, say, remove a giant creche from the lobby of City Hall, then that person is perforce engaging in a war against Christmas? Wow. ---
**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, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/113 "2006-01-31T16:53:52Z")
**Bricker:** > [@](#): > > What reason have you to believe that the allegations are NOT true? The school district has now clarified its policy; they contend that the policy was never as the parents describe but they do NOT contend that the parents’ version of the meeting with the principal is wrong. 😕 So if they deny that the policy was ever as the parents describe, on the strength of what authority was the principal allegedly speaking in the meeting? Anyway, I’ve got no particular reason to believe the allegations are not true. I just know better than to take at face value the claims alleged in a complaint, especially if they don’t quite pass the smell test. ---
**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, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/114 "2006-01-31T16:55:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s a perfectly fine weapon to use… in a war against Christmas. Certainly you may call it “seeking stricter enforcement of the 1st amendment,” and that would not be wrong… just as it’s not wrong to call a person “pro-choice” even though one side of the debate might prefer “pro-abortion” or even “pro-baby-killing.” See **tomndebb** ’s reply. He said it better than I can. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/115 "2006-01-31T16:56:22Z")
With the current threshold established by **Bricker** of a dozen not-necessarily connected actions or threatened actions to determine whether or not a “war” is in progress, I think we could probably establish that there is a “war for Christian supremacy” and a “war for non-Christian exclusion” going on in the public sphere. (I ---
**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, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/116 "2006-01-31T16:58:57Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > That’s why I want to see something specifically citing what the principal told them. > [@](#): > > 6.467. PISD has recently sent parents of PISD students a letter that for the > December 17, 2004 Party “contributions” be limited “to the approved > items listed below.” The restrictions specially refer to “white plates,” > “white paper napkins,” and “white ready to spread frosting.” (emphasis > added). Christmas colors red and green are banned from the party because > of their religious significance and because they symbolize the Christian > religion. The PISD restrictions prohibit gifts from being distributed > between students because gifts are not on the “approved” list. The > restrictions specifically refer to the PISD “policy on distribution of school > material and non school materials.” From [here.](http://www.libertylegal.org/pdfs/Plano%20Case.pdf) ---
**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, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/117 "2006-01-31T17:01:39Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > **Bricker:** > 😕 So if they deny that the policy was ever as the parents describe, on the strength of what authority was the principal allegedly speaking in the meeting? Anyway, I’ve got no particular reason to believe the allegations are not true. I just know better than to take at face value the claims alleged in a complaint, especially if they don’t quite pass the smell test. Well, since the lawsuit claims to attach the letter in which those restrictions were promulgated as an exhibit (Exhibit 129), I think it would be rather bold of them to make a claim about what the letter said, claim the letter was attached as an exhibit, AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT. Wouldn’t it? Or is that a tactic you’ve seen a lot? ---
**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, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/118 "2006-01-31T17:02:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Christmas colors red and green are banned from the party because > of their religious significance and because they symbolize the Christian > religion. Again, this – the pertinent part of your quote – is utterly conclusory. Requiring white napkins does not give rise to the twin inferences that (1) red and green were specifically disfavored (2) because of their religious and Christian significance. ---
**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, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/119 "2006-01-31T17:03:06Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > **Bricker:** > So if someone (a) is a practicing Christian, (b) celebrates both the secular and religious aspects of the Christmas holiday, and (c) supports (or initiates!) a lawsuit to force a city to, say, remove a giant creche from the lobby of City Hall, then that person is perforce engaging in a war against Christmas? Wow. Yes. Absolutely yes. ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/120 "2006-01-31T17:04:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, since the lawsuit claims to attach the letter in which those restrictions were promulgated as an exhibit (Exhibit 129), I think it would be rather bold of them to make a claim about what the letter said, claim the letter was attached as an exhibit, AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT. Wouldn’t it? This letter, it’s from the principal recounting the substance of his conversation with the parents? (How did we get sidetracked into the stupid specifics of the Plano case when there are so many more substantive objections to your ludicrous line of reasoning?) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=7)