# 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:** 8
**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, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/141 "2006-01-31T18:23:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Answered above. See “guerilla warfare.” Nope, not answered above, until you can supply a definition of “guerilla warfare” that 1)distinguishes it from simple armed criminality and 2)does not include some form of centralized direction. ---
**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, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/142 "2006-01-31T18:23:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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_. Interesting leap there, counselor. > [@Complaint](#): > > 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.” (A copy of the letter sent to parents by the PISD is attached as Exhibit 129.) Please note that the part about red and green being banned because they are Christmas colors is _not_ in quotes and thus probably doesn’t actually appear in the letter itself. In fact, very little of the letter is quoted. I would say that the school limited items to the approved list, left red & green napkins off of the approved list, and the lawyer for the plaintiffs is alleging some anti-Christmas bias. Until you produce a copy of the letter, we have no way of knowing, do we? > [@](#): > > 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. No it’s not. It’s a Just Defense of SOCAS. Due to Christmas’ high profile (and the rabid reactionary tactics of a group of self-professed “Christians”), you tend to hear about it a lot more during the winter season. That doesn’t make it a War on Christmas any more than the conflict in Iraq was a War on March. ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/143 "2006-01-31T18:26:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Thank you. Given your definitions, then, there is no “War on Christmas.” I reject your assertion that attempts to make the government religiously neutral, on their own, constitute an attack against Christmas. Every example that’s been provided so far involves government endorsement of Christianity in some way or another, so it falls within the scope of the Christian Crusade Against the First Amendment. You have been unable to provide any evidence that anyone in a non-government capacity has been prevented from celebrating Christmas. Ergo, you’re wrong. If somebody wants to start a thread asking about the Republican War Against Homosexuals, they’d have a better shot at making their point. ---
**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, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/144 "2006-01-31T18:30:56Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > …whether there’s a substantive difference (assertions of centralized coordination notwithstanding) between what seem to be “defensive” challenges to the War on Christmas – that is, the desire to preserve existing town manger scenes or other examples of traditional or status quo holiday celebrations in the face of secular attack – and “offensive” challenges, such as efforts to squelch the use of the phrase “Happy Holidays,” which has a specific and discrete meaning that isn’t simply interchangeable with “Merry Christmas.” I see the distinction, and I think there’s a difference between “offense” and “defense” here. But your specific example is “defense” - if a store forbids “Merry Christmas,” then THAT is the attack, and the effort to replace “Happy Holidays” is the defensive move. ---
**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, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/145 "2006-01-31T18:33:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I disagree with your disagreement. While there are often cases of _semi_-independent cells that engage in various actions, I can think of no event that has been called a guerilla war that did not involve an overall guided movement. Truly autonomous groups all attacking a government are more likely to be described as the actions of individual warlords and each will be considered a separate guerilla war. Yes, precisely, with the caveat that even counting the independent warlords as leaders of a separate guerilla war presumes that each is in command of more than the bunch of guys with guns who are within earshot at the moment. ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/146 "2006-01-31T18:34:25Z")
> [@black455](#): > > You have been unable to provide any evidence that anyone in a non-government capacity has been prevented from celebrating Christmas. > > Ergo, you’re wrong. How does this follow? The Japanese lost World War II. They did not succeed in their goals. Nonetheless, World War II was clearly a war. How does the fact that no one has been prevented from celebrating Christmas mean that there is no war on Christmas? All it means is that, thus far, the war has not been successful. In the Plano case, the restrictions imposed were NOT required by the Constitution. After the lawsuit was filed, the school reversed its policy. That’s a battle, with a win for the good guys. In the war. ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/147 "2006-01-31T18:34:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Are you serious? Do you actually believe this? Consider just a few points: - The movement to use Happy Holidays originated well over 30 years ago among retailers (and local TV stations) as an effort to be more inclusive of the patrons and viewers as they recognized that the country was becoming more diverse and they wanted to refrain from excluding non-Christians in their effort to sell merchandise in December. (Since I was actually working the floor of retailers specializing in Christmas sales from 1975 through 1978, I will note that I did not once see an inter-office instruction to avoid Christmas, although I saw several memoes indicating that the use of Happy Holidays would be more likely to avoid alientating Jewish and Muslim customers.) - The orders to use Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas generally originated in those bastions of Left-wing Hippie Liberalism, the Marketing and Sales departments. - The offending merchants have included such notable entities as Wal\*Mart (headquartered in the midst of the Bible Belt and notorious for such Liberal attacks on America as the refusal to sell music that had not been censored for language and content as well as its deliberate projection into the [Christian merchandise market](http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/15/cz_cc_0915wmt.html)). So to discover this great war, we have to posit a grand conspiracy of Liberal secular lawyers and Conservative Christian merchants, all working in concert over the preceding 30 to 40 years, operating in such secrecy that not one person on the inside has had the courage to expose them with a memo of the deliberations of their cabal. Sorry. I’m not buying it. You are putting together disparate actions of diverse groups to claim a phenomenon that is simply not there. ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/148 "2006-01-31T18:34:57Z")
> [@](#): > > I see the distinction, and I think there’s a difference between “offense” and “defense” here. But your specific example is “defense” - if a store forbids “Merry Christmas,” then THAT is the attack, and the effort to replace “Happy Holidays” is the defensive move. …But when Bill O’Reilly claims to be offended by hearing store clerks say “Happy Holidays” without a showing that it’s store policy to say Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas, that isn’t “defense,” it’s “offense.” Correct? ---
**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, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/149 "2006-01-31T18:35:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. This is still a gross mistatement of the issue. This is not a conflict about Christmas _per se_ but about what sort of religious expression is permissable in public schools. The specific holiday of Christmas is both incidental and immaterial to what the conflict is really about. I would also point out that the “attackers” in this case are the Christians. The school is only defending itself. Have you been able to think of any examples of privately owned businesses being pressured not to celebrate 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, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/150 "2006-01-31T18:38:08Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Until you produce a copy of the letter, we have no way of knowing, do we? Well, I also have the interview conducted by Gibson of the plaintiffs. In that interview - which appears in his book, and thus I can’t give you a clickable cite - the specific allegation is made. Surely that is enough to create a prima facie case for the truth of the matter. You can find a cite for the school officials changing their policy; I’m not aware of anyone specifically denying this allegation. ---
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/151 "2006-01-31T18:40:07Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > …But when Bill O’Reilly claims to be offended by hearing store clerks say “Happy Holidays” without a showing that it’s store policy to say Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas, that isn’t “defense,” it’s “offense.” Correct? Absolutely. ---
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/152 "2006-01-31T18:40:44Z")
**Bricker:** > [@](#): > > You can find a cite for the school officials changing their policy; I’m not aware of anyone specifically denying this allegation. I thought you said that the school officials denied that their policy was as described in the complaint. ---
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/153 "2006-01-31T18:40:49Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > 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.” OK. To demonstrate that what is going on is **not** what Zakalwe describes above, but rather is an insidious “war on Christmas”, calls for a half-dozen cites of lawsuits **not directed at a government entity**. The goalpost is ready for your kick, Bricker… ---
**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, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/154 "2006-01-31T18:43:59Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > 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: I’m amazed that we’re four pages into the thread, and people are still spending energy trying to defeat my argument that the war on Christmas is a coordinated, concerted effort. When I never once made such an argument. Corporations may well decide to say “Happy Holidays” in an effort to appease the vocal minority of people that complain about “Merry Christmas”. If they do, that’s part of the war on Christmas. Or they may decide to use “Happy Holidays” as a result of their own marketing decision that the latter is more effective. If they reach the decision that way, they are not part of the phenomenon I’m describing. ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/155 "2006-01-31T18:48:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Corporations may well decide to say “Happy Holidays” in an effort to appease the vocal minority of people that complain about “Merry Christmas”. If they do, that’s part of the war on Christmas. Or they may decide to use “Happy Holidays” as a result of their own marketing decision that the latter is more effective. If they reach the decision that way, they are not part of the phenomenon I’m describing. Can you point to any instances of the former? If not, then there is no war on Christmas - at least not on this front. ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/156 "2006-01-31T18:48:22Z")
Damn. ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/157 "2006-01-31T18:49:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How does this follow? The Japanese lost World War II. They did not succeed in their goals. Nonetheless, World War II was clearly a war. > > How does the fact that no one has been prevented from celebrating Christmas mean that there is no war on Christmas? All it means is that, thus far, the war has not been successful. Pedantic, but true. Change my statement to: _You have been unable to provide any evidence that anybody is **attempting to prevent** anyone from celebrating Christmas in a non-government capacity._ > [@](#): > > In the Plano case, the restrictions imposed were NOT required by the Constitution. After the lawsuit was filed, the school reversed its policy. That’s a battle, with a win for the good guys. In the war. The matter still centered on interpretation of the Establishment Clause, and the school’s concerns, albeit unfounded, about violating it. It’s a battle in a war that only exists in the fevered imaginings of uninformed and ignorant. You’re still wrong. ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/158 "2006-01-31T18:51:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m amazed that we’re four pages into the thread, and people are still spending energy trying to defeat my argument that the war on Christmas is a coordinated, concerted effort. > > When I never once made such an argument. Oh, please. People are not letting you get away with smuggling that assertion in through your choice of words (“war”) and then refusing to stand behind its implications. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2006, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/159 "2006-01-31T18:53:38Z")
> [@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.” Do you think the best way to discuss this issue is to slap labels on both sides that are as divisive and inaccurate as the ones we’ve been saddled with in the abortion debate? If not, do you object to having yourself termed a participant in the War on the First Ammendment? > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. By that logic, the Oklahoma City bombing was evidence that the US was in the grips of a second civil war in 1995. ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205/160 "2006-01-31T18:56:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m amazed that we’re four pages into the thread, and people are still spending energy trying to defeat my argument that the war on Christmas is a coordinated, concerted effort. Indeed. And I’m amazed that you still haven’t bounded the playing field, of which the above is a direct consequence. At any rate, I’m unsubscribing from this thread, as it’s wasted enough of my time already. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-christmas-revisited/342205.md?page=9)