War on Christmas - revisited

[Bricker]

Having a lot of trouble posting to the board today; lots of timeouts.

Making the most of a post, here are some additional cases:

[ul]
[li]Newton County school holiday is called “Christmas” holiday over ACLU threat. Story here.[/li][li]Symbols of Hannukah and Kwanza are kept, but the Nativity scene is removed from a Christmas pageant by order of Superintendent Karl Springer in Mustang OK. Cite.[/li][li]Baldwin City schools banned visits from Santa. Cite.[/li][li]Eugene Oregon bans Christmas trees in city offices. Cite.[/li][/ul]

[Bricker]

@Freyr

I was directing my commentary more toward the collective Christian community not you in particular, except in the sense that you’re arguing the point that a “war” on Christmas does exist.

While I did start the thread with that argument, I was persuaded that “War on Christmas” was not a useful or descriptive phrase for what I was describing, and I have subsequently abandoned it.

They feel their own actions are right and correct, yet when those same actions are taken against them, they complain. That’s hypocrisy.

Yes, that might be hypocrisy. But in this thread, I am merely arguing that your second point exists, not the rightness or wrongness of it. For the purposes of this thread, I merely seek agreement that there is a significant number of incidents of organizations choosing to remove Christmas, and Christian aspects of Christmas, from public view. It may be wise or it may be unwise; I merely wish to show it’s happening.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

For the purposes of this thread, I merely seek agreement that there is a significant number of incidents of organizations choosing to remove Christmas, and Christian aspects of Christmas, from public view.

But, only in those public areas that are funded by the government. Has anyone disputed that general* claim? It seems to me you are arguing with yourself on this…

*even if some have disputed individual instances, or the details of those instances.

[Bricker]

@Shayna

Feel free to search their Policies & Regulations as thoroughly as you’d like, as it’s published on their website for anyone who wants to see it.

My understanding is that the policy was changed subsequent to the lawsuit filed by the parents. Unless you have a link to an archive showing the policy as it was in 2002, your information does not contradict my claim.

This link, to the prepared remarks of Mr. Otto’s news conference, indicate that changes were made in response to the lawsuit.

[Bricker]

@John Mace

But, only in those public areas that are funded by the government. Has anyone disputed that general* claim? It seems to me you are arguing with yourself on this…

*even if some have disputed individual instances, or the details of those instances.

Actually, that’s a good question. Does anyone dispute this? It seems to me that the requests for specific examples constituted a general dispute of the proposition. But no one has really explicitly disputed it. Perhaps the impression of general dispute was my error.

So - does anyone dispute that there is now a significant number of incidents of state and local school and government organizations choosing to remove Christmas, mentions of Christmas, Christian aspects of Christmas, etc., from public view?

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
[ul][li]Baldwin City schools banned visits from Santa. Cite.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

So, following a year in which a minister played Santa, the ACLU sends a letter “asking” about the practice. When the school board meets to discuss the issue, the entire discussion revolves around whether it is appropriate to be using cultural symbols that are exclusionary of some students and the ACLU letter is shuffled to the back with a remark that they cannot comment until they see what issue the ACLU has raised.
This becomes an attempt to “remove” Christmas?

Sorry. This looks identical to the actions of a neighboring town to me that eliminated Santa from the schools around ten years ago: the city has an increasing number of Indian/Hindu immigrants as well as a swelling Jewish population. The Christian members of the PTA went to the school board requesting that the Santa visits be dropped because it was confusing to the (increasingly large number of) non-Christian kids in the school. Of course, just as with the “War on Christmas” promoters in the media, this incident became an attack by “the Jews,” (see various public comments on Mr. Soros), on “Christmas” even though no Jews (or Indians) participated in the discussions and the only rabbi questioned said that he wished that they had left it alone, since he feared a backlash against his community over something they had not even sought.

This is why I find the issue to be one of right-wing hype. The ACLU did not shut down Santa. The ACLU did not even make a threat. It sent a letter asking a question that prompted the board to make a decision that actually ignored the ACLU letter.

Similar events have occurred elsewhere in NE Ohio. Near Akron, a town council went out and commissioned a new city logo that expressly included an image of the bible. When the ACLU sent a letter asking their intent, they responded that they were a “Christian” community and that it was their way of showing respect for God. The matter wound up going to court where the history of the town (entirely secular) and current make-up of the populace (majority, but not supermajority Christian) were used to demonstrate that the bible was inappropriate and it was ordered removed. In Geauga County, a fire department had a new badge made up that included an image of a church. The ACLU sent a letter asking for a clarification. The fire department pointed out that the church shown was the oldest building standing in the tyownship and that the other images on the badge were historical in nature. The ACLU said “fine” and went away. Even when a “Christian” group tried to attack the ACLU in the paper over the issue, the ACLU simply noted that there was no intent to proselytize and they had no desire to pursue the issue.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
[li]Newton County school holiday is called “Christmas” holiday over ACLU threat. Story here.[/li][/quote]

Check out the school board’s reasoning:

@Member of the school board

This is a Christian country and it is founded on Christian values with God in mind

[quote=Bricker]
[li]Symbols of Hannukah and Kwanza are kept, but the Nativity scene is removed from a Christmas pageant by order of Superintendent Karl Springer in Mustang OK. [/li][/quote]

Missing two vital details:

1. They were working from a play script that did not include a manger scene OR the song "Silent Night; and
2. They added a rendition of “Silent Night” to the pageant, which was the most overtly religious aspect of the production.

Baldwin City schools banned visits from Santa.

One of the reasons cited is that Santa Claus, played by a local minister, would ask kids why Christmas was celebrated, apparently looking for the answer, “It’s Jesus’s birthday.” If the school is not supposed to celebrate or promote Christmas as a religious holiday, this might go over the line. But you’re right that it probably doesn’t.

Fortunately, nobody in that story seems to think that it does. Instead, they’re all saying that they want to look at how the district celebrates Christmas, consider whether activities such as mandatory “countdowns to Santa” (without giving, say, Jehovah’s Witness parents the option to opt-out) are appropriate. They’ve canceled this minister-in-a-Santa-suit for one year, not permanently. Overblown.

Eugene Oregon bans Christmas trees in city offices.

Interestingly, this six-year-old story is the only one where I think they made the wrong decision: they decided that Christmas trees were inherently religious symbols, and that Christmas was an inherently religious holiday, and that therefore having the smbol of only one religion up violated separation of church and state.

Who decided this? The secular humanists? Nope: the Christian City Manager. His work was applauded by the Interfaith Alliance and other local religious leaders, as they agreed with him (and disagreed with me) that Christmas is an inherently religious holiday.

I wonder whether Eugene has put the trees back up?

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Oh, man. Could someone report my post to a mod and ask for cleanup? I just need the [li] before “Baldwin” and “Eugene” changed to [ quote] tags.[/li]
Daniel

[JustAnotherGeek]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Oh, man. Could someone report my post to a mod and ask for cleanup? I just need the [li] before “Baldwin” and “Eugene” changed to [ quote] tags.[/li]
Daniel

I got to report Daniel! YAY!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@JustAnotherGeek

I got to report Daniel! YAY!

Tattletale.
Daniel

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

So - does anyone dispute that there is now a significant number of incidents of state and local school and government organizations choosing to remove Christmas, mentions of Christmas, Christian aspects of Christmas, etc., from public view?

Yes, because you’re continuing to conflate “public view” with “*government-funded and sponsored * view”. Surely you know better than that. That’s what the entire issue is about, no matter how much you try to dredge up support for your position after the fact.

So why are you continuing to do so? Just for the fun of having your own post-hoc “cites” constantly blown up in your face? Is it related to your continued (and disappointingly revealing) refusal to state simply whether or not you agree with the Constitutional requirement *prohibiting * government from doing what you’re complaining it’s not doing as much of anymore?

After all these pages and all these posts, isn’t it about damn time you say what you want to accomplish here?

@LHOD

Interestingly, this six-year-old story is the only one where I think they made the wrong decision: they decided that Christmas trees were inherently religious symbols, and that Christmas was an inherently religious holiday, and that therefore having the smbol of only one religion up violated separation of church and state.

Tannenbaumen are symbols of a religion - Teutonic paganism.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Actually, that’s a good question. Does anyone dispute this? It seems to me that the requests for specific examples constituted a general dispute of the proposition. But no one has really explicitly disputed it. Perhaps the impression of general dispute was my error.

So - does anyone dispute that there is now a significant number of incidents of state and local school and government organizations choosing to remove Christmas, mentions of Christmas, Christian aspects of Christmas, etc., from public view?

I dispute it. Objecting to state endorsement is not the same as attempting to “remove it from public view.” I think that’s a dishonest way to frame it. Christmas quite obviously is and always will be in full public view and nobody has a problem with it.

Do you dispute that there have been concerted attempts lately to force the religiosity of Christmas INTO the public sphere (including both state and private sectors)?

[Bricker]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Do you dispute that there have been concerted attempts lately to force the religiosity of Christmas INTO the public sphere (including both state and private sectors)?

No, I don’t dispute that at all.

[Bricker]

@tomndebb

So, following a year in which a minister played Santa, the ACLU sends a letter “asking” about the practice. When the school board meets to discuss the issue, the entire discussion revolves around whether it is appropriate to be using cultural symbols that are exclusionary of some students and the ACLU letter is shuffled to the back with a remark that they cannot comment until they see what issue the ACLU has raised.
This becomes an attempt to “remove” Christmas?

With all due respect, I believe you’re entirely dismissive of the very real concerns that accompany a letter from the ACLU “asking” about a practice. The receipt of such a letter puts the recipient on notice that the ACLU is looking into what they are doing. Risk-adverse organizations will then err on the side of keeping the ACLU happy. No one reads the ACLU letter as an attempt to increase the visibility of Christmas. There is no reasonable interpretation of such a letter except that it seeks to muzzle some aspect of Christmas.

[Bricker]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Check out the school board’s reasoning:

What of it? That’s an improper motivation, but an entirely legal change. If I advocate for a law forbidding murder because one of God’s Commandments is “Thou shalt not kill,” you may correctly distinguish my motivation - improper - from my intended result: proper.

1. They were working from a play script that did not include a manger scene OR the song "Silent Night; and
2. They added a rendition of “Silent Night” to the pageant, which was the most overtly religious aspect of the production.

So what? The Nativity scene was not part of the script this year because it was removed:

Concerned over the issue of separation of church and state, Superintendent Karl Springer asked for legal advice from the school board attorney, who recommended the Nativity scene be removed.

That decision is NOT one required by “separation of church and state.”

[Bricker]

Fortunately, nobody in that story seems to think that it does. Instead, they’re all saying that they want to look at how the district celebrates Christmas, consider whether activities such as mandatory “countdowns to Santa” (without giving, say, Jehovah’s Witness parents the option to opt-out) are appropriate. They’ve canceled this minister-in-a-Santa-suit for one year, not permanently. Overblown.

Overblown? Does it fit the criteria I’ve outlined, or not?

[Shodan]

@Bricker

With all due respect, I believe you’re entirely dismissive of the very real concerns that accompany a letter from the ACLU “asking” about a practice. The receipt of such a letter puts the recipient on notice that the ACLU is looking into what they are doing. Risk-adverse organizations will then err on the side of keeping the ACLU happy. No one reads the ACLU letter as an attempt to increase the visibility of Christmas. There is no reasonable interpretation of such a letter except that it seeks to muzzle some aspect of Christmas.

Particularly since, as tomndebb mentions, the matter did wind up in court.

The town council, in other words, correctly interpreted the ACLU letter as the prelue to an attempt at litigation. This gives weight to the notion that the ACLU sending letters can reasonably be interpreted as attempts at exerting pressure without the bother of lawsuits.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

Overblown? Does it fit the criteria I’ve outlined, or not?

I’d say not, since nobody is trying to shut down Christmas, and Christmas is not shut down. Instead, someone said, “I have a question,” and someone else said, “Good question! Let’s think about it.” That’s very different from what you described.

Daniel

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I dispute it. Objecting to state endorsement is not the same as attempting to “remove it from public view.” I think that’s a dishonest way to frame it. Christmas quite obviously is and always will be in full public view and nobody has a problem with it.

I agree. This whole public sphere or public view issue is very confusing, since Bricker is using it to also mean private places of public accomodation. If we stick strictly to government propoerty, wouldn’t you agree that some people have made efforts to reomve or limit the display or celebration of Christmas? Even if they are not successcuf in doing so, or even if those efforts are dwarfed by those trying to push more public clebration of Christmas on government property?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Shodan

Particularly since, as tomndebb mentions, the matter did wind up in court.

No it didn’t.