Does it state that red and green aren’t allowed because they’re symbolic of Christianity? If so, then I’d find that damn convincing, yes.
What? No! We’re talking about two different things here:
- The PISD letter, which I don’t think you’ve claimed says anything about forbidding Christmas colors (all it says is that white napkins are requested); and
- Your paraphrase of an author’s interview with the plaintiffs who are paraphrasing the conversation they claim they had with the principal.
Your second claim is the one with the strong evidence of an anti-Christmas policy from the school, but it’s the one with the weak evidence. Your first claim is an extremely weak claim of an anti-Christian bias. I certainly believe that someone at the school asked folks to bring white napkins; that’s an unexceptional request on their part and does not signify an anti-Christmas attitude. I’m skeptical of the principal’s conversation with the plaintiffs, but at least if you can provide us a quote of the book’s account of the plaintiff’s account of the conversation, we’ll have something to work with.
Daniel
Oy vey. The second one is a strong CLAIM of anti-Christmas policy, but it’s the one for which the EVIDENCE is weak. Sorry about that.
Daniel
Excellent. I agree with you that something is happening. I disagree that this something is a recent occurrence (the O’Reilly/Gibson effect merely a recent manifestation of it). It can be argued that Coca-Cola, with it’s invention of our current image of Santa Claus, is part of this something - tomndebb’s former employer’s memos on “Happy Holidays” is part of it. Indeed, ever since the Christian hostile takeover of that time of year there has been conflict between the Christian religious observance and the yahoo party-goers. (one cite of many). I wonder what O’Reilly’s great-great-etc-great ancestor broadcast to the faithful during that struggle 
So that’s it, isn’t it? The non-Christians wanna do it their way. Some Christians want everyone to do it their way, motivated by a power-play (or ratings/publishing play) or out a true concern for the salvation of the unsaved. Christianity has as one of its central mandates the “Great Commission” i.e. Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel, fishers of men, and all that. Christans say, “Ye must be saved! Join us!” Party goers say, “Join us! We saved ye an egg nog!”
Precisely one year ago this month, I was embroiled in a legal battle with my former landlord, who was attempting to file an illegal unlawful detainer against my husband and me. This was the culmination of a series of illegal acts, or attempted acts he’d pulled with us. We were living in a rat infested apartment with numerous health code violations that was, literally, uninhabitable (we had to move into a motel when a rat finally outsmarted us and chewed through the towel we’d stuffed under our bedroom door and jumped on the bed and ran from my ankle up my body towards my face – and yes, the County Health Inspectors found a live rat in the furnace closet in my laundry room during one of their inspections).
My attorney was quite happy when he got notice of the filing that claimed to have certain documents attached, and sent me down to the courthouse to obtain a copy of these alleged attachments. We knew those attachments didn’t exist, so either there would be an attachment and it would be a complete forgery, or there would be no attachment at all. Guess which one there was. . . or wasn’t, as it were.
Of course on the day of trial, he conveniently dropped the case because he knew he’d have no chance in hell of prevailing in front of a judge. He just wanted to make a point – that he was bigger, and richer, and meaner and knew exactly how to play the game so that it would cost me thousands of dollars to defend against his bogus allegations, in which case he wins in his sick mind.
So, having lived it, and seen the machinations certain attorneys will go to when filing cases, yes, I can completely believe that there might be no such document actually attached to their filing.
However, even if this letter existed exactly as the complaint purports, it still doesn’t qualify as an example of the principal making any such request, seeing as how, as Left Hand of Dorkness pointed out in post #74, the school district’s attorney claims the alleged letter was written by someone on the PTA. That’s not the same as the principal and certainly not the same as the official school district.
Well, we happen to have a poster here who works for PISD. I just called her and asked her, and she tells me that there is no such school policy banning red and green as Christmas colors. The administration building had not one, not two, but three Christmas trees, one right in the middle of the lobby. If she can wade her way through all 5 pages of this mess, she’ll try to post more herself, later.
It was not a PISD letter. See above.
But I’d still like to see a copy of it…
Bricker, you’ve evaded the central point, despite frequent prodding, long enough.
Do you or do you not support the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state? If not, why not, and why are you not working to amend it to suit your wishes? If so, what is the nature of your complaint?
The implications of both what you’ve said and what you’ve refused to say should be as obvious to you as to the rest of us, and you must know they are totally uncomplimentary to your position and to you personally. If you’d rather dispel them, you may take the opportunity at any time. Or just keep digging, your choice.
I propose a name change for the following reasons:
-
War implies an objective, namely defeat your opponent. A War on Christmas implies that there is something attempt to defeat Christmas, not merely public display of it.
-
By using Christmas alone is dishonest when all evidence cited for this war is limited to public areas or government organizations.
-
All evidence cited in this case is no different than any other action towards religion. Thus, Christmas or Christianity is not being singled out and specifiying it in the phrase implies that it is.
-
War implies a somewhat coherent organization that is acting. As far as I am aware there is no such organization attempting to do anything to Christmas.
I suggest the following phrase: “A social trend towards removing religious activities from the public sphere.” Its not as sexy nor will it sell books but it is ten times more accurate than “War on Christmas.”
And much to John Gibson’s chagrin, the phrase “War on Christmas” doesn’t seem to be selling many books, either.
Apparently sold one to Bricker, though.
Coca-Cola did not “invent” the current image of Santa Claus; that’s an urban myth. Except for the red colour of his outfit, Santa in his current form was present in Clement Clark Moore’s “A Visit from St. Nicholas,” written in 1822, long before there was a Coca-Cola. The image developed from there, and the red suit was a standard part of his outfit by the 1890’s or so; a Santa Claus of 1906 would be pretty much indistinguishable from one today.
Coke didn’t start using Santa until the 1930s.
Bricker, do you have a theory about who these warriors are and what their motivations might be for declaring war?
Are they opposed to family gatherings with lots of food and new toys? Are they afraid of gaining weight? Have they seen A Charlie Brown Christmas one too many times? Are they repulsed by the scent of bayberry and pine? Do they find decorated neighborhoods to be garish? Do jazz versions of Ukranian Bell Carol get on their nerves? Do they resent the bump to the economy?
And exactly what do they mean by “Happy Holidays”? Are they referring to “Holy Days”?
Exactly what are they up to?
As I see it, the implication that there is a war on Christmas is a way for the Leaders of a fanatical movement to stir up the other fanatics to push forth their agenda, and in some cases it is working;look at what is happening to the Supreme Court. Such leaders cause fear in the hearts of their followers and that is how they hope to succeed. Riled up people are more willing to push an agenda than some others. That is why Bush was elected to begin with. The same people who claim to be so perfect could care less at what happens as long as what they want is the law. A democracy is endangered if one plays into such things. Democracy is and should be a guardian of all peoples rights.
Monavis
Is the fourth of July a Holy Day? Labor Day? Many none Christians have their Holiday,as most people celebrate New Years Day as a holiday. Holiday’s is inclusive, Meryy Christmas is not.
Monavis
OOPS! Merry Christmas not Meryy, Sorry about that!
Thank you for correcting this; I should have double checked this before typing. The point didn’t hinge, though, on who invented the current image. Please consider my post amended to “Coca-Cola help popularize and standardize the then recently developed images of Santa Claus.”
Or better: Those that helped establish the popularity of the current image of Santa, including Coca-Cola and Clement Clark Moore, contributed to the ‘something that is not a war’ by developing secular iconography as a competetive alternative to the Christian preferences.
Take this, along with the alternates offered by other cultures increasingly more visible, plus the general decline in the popularity of Christianity, then add the Christian desire to “reach out.” This is a recipie for tension felt deeply enough in Christian camps that the word “war” does not seem unreasonable to them at first blush.
I still like my previous suggestion of “MAGSPORC”, for “Movement Against Government-Sponsored Religious Celebrations”. Fits on a bumper sticker and everything.
As the saying goes, “never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity”; I think we can add “fear and greed” to “stupidity”. I think the following conversations are entirely plausible:
Scene:Wal-Mart (or any other large retailer)
Marketing Director: I’m a bit worried about Christmas. Are we possibly losing sales, by calling it “Christmas”?
Underling: But boss, 99% of our customers celebrate Christmas.
MD: Yeah, but do you wanna lose the 1% wackos who would refuse to shop for “Christmas presents”?
Underling: Good point, boss. Should we run a focus group?
MD: Nah. Just switch to “holiday”…maybe nobody will notice.
Scene: School Board
SB President: I’m worried about Christmas. If we call it “Christmas Vacation” will we get sued?
SB Member: Huh?
SB President: Look at that wacko in Sacramento who sued over the Pledge of Allegiance. We don’t need that aggravation.
SB Member: Good point, boss. Can the kids still sing Christmas carols?
SB President: Hmmm…better not. Better to be safe than sorry.
Nature’s Call: Cool, we can use magnetized sporks as the emblems of our movement!
*“MAGSPORC. Because your religious celebrations are none of the government’s business.” *