It’s part and parcel of their usual line. They can (and have) influenced politics and law making to discriminate against others. The more disgusting among them called for violence against anyone who doesn’t knuckle under. On the other hand, any time someone tells them to stop, they play the victim. In this case (Christmas) there is no war and never has been. They made it up to stir the pot and cast themselves as victims. Hypocrite is a good word for them. Liar is an even better word. These “christians” invented the war on Christmas. Then they lied and made up stories to back up their empty assertions.
Yes, there is more of an actual push now than in the past.
It may well be.
No. But I contend that the number of actual lawsuits PLUS the number of threatened lawsuits is significant.
I think there are a mix of goals. Some people who celebrate Christmas themselves promulgate unncessarily restrictive regulations; their goal is to avoid litigation or threats thereof. Some people are simply interested in promoting a more diverse spirit during the winter months. Some are angry atheists who want to attack the trappings of religion in society.
Well, I think that the anecdotal aspect of the offenderati is enough to move at least some stores. In other words, the mere story, in the current climate, is sufficient to nudge policies or informal guidance.
That’s a fair question, and worth exploring on its own. I started this thread to contend that there WAS such a pressure, and that it was fair to call it, in aggregate, a war on Christmas. I’ve since been persuaded that the phrase is NOT, in fact, a useful one. I still contend that the phenomenon exists. Whether it’s a right, good, laudable direction for us to take is secondary to my point in this thread.
That’s a fair question, and worth exploring on its own. I started this thread to contend that there WAS such a pressure, and that it was fair to call it, in aggregate, a war on Christmas. I’ve since been persuaded that the phrase is NOT, in fact, a useful one. I still contend that the phenomenon exists. Whether it’s a right, good, laudable direction for us to take is secondary to my point in this thread.
Those cites are both to opinion pieces that are pretty clearly drawing from other opinion pieces. I’d be interested in seeing a cite that’s closer to the source and has details about what employees were forbidden from saying Merry Christmas, by whom, and under what circumstances.
Daniel
How can such a statement possibly be hypocritical?
I don’t think you know what hypocrisy is - or you’re not talking about me. I’m simply claiming that these actions exist. I don’t believe it is even possible for such a claim to be hypocritical.
That’s a fair request. It was from those sources, though, that I drew the information. I am perfectly willing to withdraw it pending a better cite.
So, what is your argument based on, now? It appears that your factual bases keep disappearing.
Bricker,
From your 2nd cite:
So, with the understanding that saying “Merry Christmas” is an acknowledgement of a religious belief, would you hold it to be a push against religious beliefs if a state employee was prevented from answering the phone, “Good morning! Thank you for calling the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles - Driver’s License Division. Have you accepted Christ as your personal savior?”
If that’s unacceptable, but “Merry Christmas” is, in your view, where do we draw the line?
I’d also still like an answer to my question in post #36. If government entities insist on endorsing religion in official practices, what choice do opponents have other than to litigate or threaten to litigate?
So, is this whole thread about whether some people somewhere want to remove or limit the celebration of Christmas in the public sphere, with “public sphere” including government run agencies likes schools, libraries, courthouses, etc.? If so, I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with you. Of course there are people trying to do this. To the extent that there is any debate about this subject, it concerns the celebration of Christmas in the “private sphere”-- shopping malls, department stores and the like. Is it your contention that there is some effort to limit the celebration of Christmas in that “private” part of the “public sphere”? That seems to be where all the controversy is arising from.
If you wanted to discuss the presence of a “war”, or whatever term you’d now propose instead (you do have one, don’t you?_, how the hell could you expect to avoid discussing the motivations for it? :dubious:
You cannot simply admit something is a “fair question, worth exploring” unless you’re in fact willing to explore it, even at the risk of finding your position to be in the wrong. You could begin to do so with a even the briefest answer to the question of whether or not you support the Constitution’s separation of church and state.
At least you’ll never again complain about anyone else’s refusal to admit being shown wrong, I trust. :rolleyes:
Well, that one certainly is on hold.
The Plano school district incident appears to have survived.
The Bartlett Public Library’s ban of Mary, Joseph, and baby figurines from their Nativity scene is still in play.
Welcome back, Bricker. What is your response to post #155?
It’s only survived in the sense that you left town for the weekend. We left the conversation regarding this incident here.
Daniel
Do you mean the Memphis-Shelby County Library’s decision you mentioned in post #82? You didn’t develop that argument or provide any cites.
I would agree that your example is unacceptable. The official federal holiday is called “Christmas.” I believe merely saying the words, “Merry Christmas” do not amount to an endorsement of religion as that phrase is used in the law.
If someone threatens to lititgate on the use of “Merry Christmas,” this is PRECISELY what I’m talking about. The law permits “Merry Christmas,” even from a government official. But the threat of litigation and its attendant expense can cause an overly cautious administrator to back down. That’s an inappropriate tactic.
So we did. I have an e-mail in to the attorney who represented the parents, requesting a scan of the letter. My understanding is that it’s a letter from the principal outling the school policy. That should solve this issue nicely.