# 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:** 7
**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, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/121 "2006-01-31T17:05:28Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. Litigation is a tactic that has - of course - been reserved for attacks in the war against governmental involvement. However, when a major retailer instructs its employees to NOT say “Merry Christmas,” that’s another tactic, not involving government, but a part of the war I’m describing. ---
**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, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/122 "2006-01-31T17:17:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > From [here.](http://www.libertylegal.org/pdfs/Plano%20Case.pdf) This link just goes to the parents’ complaint. You can’t use the allegations to substantiate themselves. How about a copy of the letter? It sounds like the candy canes contained a proselytizing message. What’s inappropriate about disallowing that kind of harrassment of other students? Even if there is a case here (which I doubt), it still only amounts to one case of one school not being clear about the law. Is it your position that every memeber of that school administration hates Christmas and wants to get rid of it? Do you believe they’re hostile to Christmas as a holiday at all? I’m willing to bet that most or all of them celebrate Christmas themselves. What do you think? Oh wait…I get it…you’re going to say they were afraid of a lawsuit. Well, they got sued anyway, didn’t they? So it turns out persecuted Christians have the same ability to use litigation as a means to pressure or intimidate schools into do what they want as the dirty secularists do. Maybe sometimes they’ll even be right. In those cases you should be thankful that the ACLU will be there for them. Isn’t it fortunate that we have such a great legal system in place to resolve these kinds of disputes? ---
**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, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/123 "2006-01-31T17:19:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? Any chance we could see a copy of Exhibit 129 and then judge for ourselves what it does or doesn’t say? ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/124 "2006-01-31T17:22:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. You are complaining of a broad-based movement trying to eradicate the religious aspects of throughout society. A secular school choosing a secular theme for a party hardly amounts to such a threat. Christmas and Christianity do not live or die by how Christmas is observed in the public schools. Most let out days before Christmas anyway. Homes and churches are the key venues for celebrating Christmas. Unless you can show that the secularation of Christmas is not confined to government-run venues, you have no case. (As for businesses, it’s up to the owner to decide how religious their public face should be, as any good conservative should agree.) ---
**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, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/125 "2006-01-31T17:26:18Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > (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?) Because that’s the only substantiation he’s offering. If there’s been a more absurd OP in GD lately, I can’t think of it. ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/126 "2006-01-31T17:28:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Litigation is a tactic that has - of course - been reserved for attacks in the war against governmental involvement. > > However, when a major retailer instructs its employees to NOT say “Merry Christmas,” that’s another tactic, not involving government, but a part of the war I’m describing. No, it’s a private business owner exercising his right to run his business how he wants to. Employees are being _paid_ to use whatever language their employers want them to use. If it’s their job to interact with patrons, then they are being paid to represent that business, not themselves. They serve as proxies for the owners. They aren’t allowed to say “fuck you” either. Does that infringe their first amendment rights? A business has a right to present itself in whatever manner it believes will be the most healthy for its sales. If a privately owned business believes that certain kinds of language used by employees will be offensive to its patrons then it has every right to restrict that language. The motive is not to “attack Christmas” but to make more money. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/127 "2006-01-31T17:33:57Z")
**Bricker** , more than the pro-choice vs. pro-death battle for language, what you’re describing here sounds more like a war on the establishment clause and/or a war on religious neutrality. The PISD and whatever major retailer are the defenders here. It’s the Christmasians doing the attacking. How do we know that the PISD and the retailer aren’t expressing genuine desire for religious equality rather than fear of litigation? ---
**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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/128 "2006-01-31T17:41:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Litigation is a tactic that has - of course - been reserved for attacks in the war against governmental involvement. Which could also be described as “defense of the principles enshrined in the Constitution”, right? Does the Constitution mean what it says and must be followed whether you like it or not, as you constantly claim, or is that concept to be applied only when you find it convenient and when it doesn’t create a conflict with your own particular brand of faith or political ideology? Your refusal to address substance is not helping you at all, you must realize. ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/129 "2006-01-31T17:47:35Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > This letter, it’s from the principal recounting the substance of his conversation with the parents? No. The conversation with the principal was subsequent to the letter. That is, the letter lays out what purports to be the school district’s policy. After receiving it, the parents asked for a meeting with the principal, and during that meeting, he affirmed that the policy was as stated. > [@](#): > > (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?) Gee, I don’t know. I wasn’t in favor of providing specific examples just yet, for PRECISELY this reason. YOU urged me to provide specifics. ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/130 "2006-01-31T17:52:08Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > This link just goes to the parents’ complaint. You can’t use the allegations to substantiate themselves. How about a copy of the letter? The complaint is signed by an attorney. While I grant that allegations of a factual nature are not proven by their mere appearance in a complaint - else why would we have trials? - I don’t believe I have ever heard of a complaint that quotes a letter incorrectly and then _provides the letter as an attachment_. > [@](#): > > It sounds like the candy canes contained a proselytizing message. What’s inappropriate about disallowing that kind of harrassment of other students? _sigh_ My claim is that it happened. Your response says, “OK, it happened, but it was reasonable.” Fine. It’s a Just War on Christmas, in your view. I’m just trying to show the war exists, not whether it’s right or wrong. ---
**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, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/131 "2006-01-31T17:53:22Z")
> [@Diogenes](#): > > Even if there is a case here (which I doubt), it still only amounts to one case of one school not being clear about the law. Is it your position that every memeber of that school administration hates Christmas and wants to get rid of it? Do you believe they’re hostile to Christmas as a holiday at all? I’m willing to bet that most or all of them celebrate Christmas themselves. What do you think? Well, that’s what examples are. Each example is one case. I’m not claiming that any of the other things you said above. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/132 "2006-01-31T17:54:13Z")
The Plano case case certainly makes a mountain out of a molehill, but in the light of the brouhaha, how goes the effort to ban red and green decorations from all public schools? I suspect that this year the kids can bring all the red and green napkins they like. Given the amount of ink spilled on this case, it’s curious that the focus has remained on napkins with no clarification as to other red and green decorations, such as wreaths, are prohibited at school. If they are, the point is not that it’s anti-religious, but that it’s stupid. Christmahanukwanzturnaliyulestice is a multi-faceted holiday with many secular aspects that the religious aspects can be plugged into, or not, depending on the individual. ---
**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, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/133 "2006-01-31T17:55:36Z")
> [@Diogenes](#): > > Oh wait…I get it…you’re going to say they were afraid of a lawsuit. Well, they got sued anyway, didn’t they? So it turns out persecuted Christians have the same ability to use litigation as a means to pressure or intimidate schools into do what they want as the dirty secularists do. Maybe sometimes they’ll even be right. In those cases you should be thankful that the ACLU will be there for them. > > Isn’t it fortunate that we have such a great legal system in place to resolve these kinds of disputes? Yes. It turns out that both sides in the war on Christmas have access to litigation. That doesn’t show there isn’t a war on Christmas. It just shows that both sides can fight. Indeed, I don’t think Christmas is in much danger. For every case of attack, there are probably ten public schools quietly having Christmas parties, with red and green napkins, and singing “Silent Night” at their concerts. But that doesn’t erase the cases I’m discussing. ---
**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, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/134 "2006-01-31T17:56:32Z")
Can you address my post #87 please, **Bricker**? Thanks. ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/135 "2006-01-31T17:57:58Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The motive is not to “attack Christmas” but to make more money. I’d like to see an answer to this. Corporations hardly ever make a decision based on morality, much less as a conscious (if not concerted) part of a “war on Christmas” :rolleyes: You could similarly claim that corporations are waging a “war on good taste” by refusing to play decent music on the radio, and with more evidence. ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/136 "2006-01-31T17:58:01Z")
> [@](#): > > For every case of attack, there are probably ten public schools quietly having Christmas parties, with red and green napkins, and singing “Silent Night” at their concerts. Ten? Ten??? What world are you living in? ---
**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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/137 "2006-01-31T18:03:02Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > The Plano case case certainly makes a mountain out of a molehill, but in the light of the brouhaha, how goes the effort to ban red and green decorations from all public schools? I suspect that this year the kids can bring all the red and green napkins they like. Yes, they can. So in this particular battle of the war on Christmas, Christmas emerges the winner. Of course, in order to win this battle, money had to be expended on litigation. ---
**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, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/138 "2006-01-31T18:10:51Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Gladly. First, though, I wanted to thank you for addressing the posts to which I directed your attention, and to point out that you missed **CJJ** \* in Post #17. 🙂 No, I didn’t. My post #33 replies to his post #17. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/139 "2006-01-31T18:14:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, they can. So in this particular battle of the war on Christmas, Christmas emerges the winner. > > Of course, in order to win this battle, money had to be expended on litigation. Yes, the Christmasians bought a victory in the war to force Christmas on the unwilling. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/140 "2006-01-31T18:21:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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 There most certainly are generals (or some equivalent source of central direction) – if not, it’s not “guerrilla warfare”, it’s just independent acts of armed criminality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=8)