But there is a counterexample:
It isn’t always correct to assume that an inquiry from the ACLU is a prelude to litigation. The right likes to think so, so that they can maintain the ACLU’s status as official bogeyman.
Regarding Baldwin City, does anyone think it’s appropriate for a minister to dress up like Santa Claus, and grill the students on the meaning of Christmas? If you don’t think that’s over the line, there is no reasoning with you.
I would say this poses the question backwards. The question should be, “Isn’t it true that there have been a number of attempts by local governments and state instututions over the years to violate the Establishment Clause by subsidizing or endorsing a specifically Christian religious message during the winter holiday season?”
The aggressors and the criminals are the religionists, not those individuals and organizations like the ACLU which are forced to defend the First Amendment.
A flat assertion from you at this point requires some support to be accepted. Why would you say it is not? The Nativity is a religious symbol. Schools are part of government. Ergo …
So much for the original-intent approach to Constitutional interpretation too, then.
But at least you’re *starting * to address SOCAS - the principle that underlies everything that you’re complaining of here. If only you’d at least acknowledge that. 
So? If the town council was willing to act according to the law, they wouldn’t have *needed * to be sued to force them to do it. I do hope you’re not making the traditional simple hard-RW-ideologue’s assertion to the effect that “If the ACLU wants it, it must be wrong”.
By the way, why should anyone who is not breaking the law be afraid of the ACLU? The ACLU does not make any rulings, they just ask judges to do it. If you’re not in violation of the law then you’ve got nothing to worry about from a letter.
Bricker, please provide examples of the phenomenon you are describing that pertain to the bolded part of your definition above.
So what? **Bricker **has said over and over that he’s not trying to find which side is in the right, he’s just trying to demostrate that some people or organizations are trying to limit Christmas on public property. If you want to explore that angle, perhaps you can open another thread. But you’re just going to be talking past **Bricker **in this thread if you insist on framing the question that way.
Posing the question like this is a deceptive tactic which attempts to put the Constitution on the defensive. The CONSTITUTION prevents state endorsements of religion, not individuals and organizations.
Furthermore, attempts to defend the Constutution against Establishment violations do not equate to “attacks on Christmas.” That entire angle on the situation is, as I said, a dishonest way to frame the conflict.
To draw an analogy, the 3rd Amendment prohibits the military from being able to quarter soldiers in your house against your will. If (hypothetically) the state attempts to house a local battalion of the National Guard in your garage, and you go to court to defend your rights, you have not engaged in an attack or a “war on” the National Guard.
I think it’s a religionist fantasy that the ACLU or any other contignent of seething, God-hating “secularists” is out to get Christmas or to eradicate anyone’s practice of religion.
With all due respect, you are investing the ACLU with powers that do not appear to be applicable to the real world.
You have presented one example where the ACLU wrote a letter and the school board made a decision based on wholly separate conditions and ended their meeting with the statement that they would have no response to the ACLU until they had further information regarding the actual issue raised by the ACLU.
I have presented an example where the ACLU wrote a letter and the recipients of the letter continued their practice and the ACLU went away and troubled them no more.
And, in each case, the issue was the entanglement (or not) of government support for religious activities, regardless whether it was Christmas or any other action. (Remember, your ACLU story followed on a minister playing Santa; there is no evidence that the ACLU actually cared about Santa when there was no religious figure involved. ) Looking at various efforts to disentangle government and religion, but only choosing to discuss the subset of such actions that happen to involve Christmas is cherry picking.
Well, since you have chosen to ignore it, I will point out that I presented two separate stories.
In the first, a town with no history of religious affiliation with its founding or growth that is not populated with a supermajority of Christians deliberately changed their logo to include a bible for the purpose of (falsely) declaring that they were a “Christian” community.
In the second, a fire department included a religious symbol on their logo and the ACLU left them alone (despite efforts by a purportedly “Christian” PAC to urge a fight) when the department’s actions were clearly not intended to foster an entanglement between government and religion.
So, it is probably fair to say that if a governmental body that has deliberately chosen to flout the law gets a letter from the ACLU, it may presage a legal battle. It is false, however, to assume based on existing evidence that a letter from the ACLU always (or even generally) indicates that a suit is being planned.
From here.
And Lowe’s advertised “holiday trees” instead of calling them Christmas trees. After the fact was publicized, they reversed their decision, calling it a mistake.
Sorry. I do not think that Bricker has made his case, but this statement is disingenuous. Legal battles cost money and people who have little money will attempt to avoid lawsuits even if they believe they are right and even if they believe they will win.
Now, I have seen rather more institutions do stupid things to avoid litigation when no litigation or even a letter has been provided, but the ACLU is pretty firmly on the side of the “religious” people in most of those situations: arguing that students and faculty may pray or read scripture on their own time on school property or arguing that students or faculty may wear religious symbols when administrations have spuriously banned them. But your statement is not valid.
Maybe, if you keep rebutting an argument I have not made, erventually I’ll adopt the argument, and then you can win!
To repeat, AGAIN: I do not claim there is any contigent, any concerted effort, any organized plan. Stop indignantly denying what I am not claiming.
So a merchant has decided (for reasons that are not even expressed, much less hinted at) to market their December wares with no mention of any religious motifs. This is an attack on Christmas in what way?
Well, just what do you claim? Several posters have suggested that it is simply the natural progression of a pluralistic society and you have neither agreed nor disagreed with them, yet you continue to press forward with some sort of issue. What is it?
If I am weighing risk, then those two cases represent one neutral and one large negative. There’s no large positive to balance the large negative.
First of all, I don’t need a link, as the policy as it stood at the time is spelled out right there in your link. (See quote below).
Second of all, you are conflating two entirely different issues. One is the above-referenced policy regarding distribution of materials. This policy change was the result, not of threats by non-Christians to sue the school for including Christmas symbols, as you’ve been trumpeting throughout this thread, but by a Christian family who sued the school because their child couldn’t hand out his religious, non-school related materials during school hours, as the policy in place at the time only allowed students to place items on a centralized distribution table for students to take if they chose.
This policy was in place in order to avoid any disruption of instructional time, regardless of the content of the materials being distributed and was not specifically related to Christmas in any way shape or form, as it applied equally to materials of any other faith, or even non-religious materials that weren’t school related. I fail to see how this particular lawsuit supports your claims in any way.
The other issue is your contention that there is, or ever was, some kind of district policy that forbade the colors red and green, specifically with regard to decorations at a holiday party at one particular elementary school, as supposedly evidenced by a letter that you purport came from the Principal of the school in question, and more specifically, that those colors were “banned” because of their association with Christmas. On that point, my information does, in fact, contradict your claim. There is not now, nor was there ever, a “ban” on the colors red and green because of their association with Christmas, as a matter of either school or district policy.
I find it ironic that you try to lay the “blame” for this made-up (and now dropped terminology by you - though I can’t figure out what you’ve replaced it with) “war on Christmas” on lawsuits, or the threat thereof, by members of either the ACLU or the non-Christian community, and then trot out as examples, lawsuits filed by Christians guilty of trying to do exactly that – intimidate public schools into allowing Christian-specific materials/items/decorations during school hours or on school property. Contrary to his claims otherwise, looks like it worked, too.
I think it’s despicable that Christians are so hell-bent on shoving their religion down our throats that they’re willing to force public schools into costly litigation in order that they not feel marginalized like they’ve been marginalizing every other religion for decades.
P.S. – thank you Gadarene and Nature’s Call. I appreciate the positive feedback on my previous post. 
Bricker: re: the USA Today story about Macy’s.
Any indication that this was anthing but a decision by the owners? Were they under any presure, legal or otherwise, to not explicitly mention Chrismas? More likely (since the article doesn’t say either way) it was a business decision. And in NYC, where there are lots of non-Christians, that’s probably the right business decision. BTW, here’s the link, since you didn’t give it.
Same as above. Sounds like the owners trying, on their own, to err on the PC side of things.
If I am weighing risk, then those two cases represent one neutral and one negative. There’s no positive to balance the negative. Certainly if you ask the man on the street, the ACLU has a reputation for filing lawsuits. It’s not unreasonable to conclude that this reputation is known by decision-makers, and influences their decisions, even if you can provide examples where the ACLU has NOT filed suit, or even when the ACLU has come down on the side of religious expression.
Indiana University does not fit the specified part of your definition.
Now apply the following test to the last two examples:
It certainly constitutes an “attack” on Christmas if the substance of the change is to stop mentioning the word Christmas.
The actual steps involved in that “natural progression of a pluralistic society” include attempts to remove the word Christmas and the traditional trappings of Christmas from public view. THAT’S ALL I’M SAYING.
It may well be natural, right, just, proper, fit, and meet. OK? I’m just saying it’s happening. That’s all.
I would suggest to these ‘businessmen’ that they stop trying to deny acknowledging the reason for their biggest sales season of the year…and that would be Christmas. People don’t flock to the stores to buy gifts in such huge numbers for any reason other than that it’s Christmas. I’m not a religious fanatic by a long shot, but the hypocracy and PC cowardice that underlies this sudden (and therefore perceived as concerted) effort on the part of merchants to eliminate the word Christmas from public view is offensive on several levels and will most likely to backfire on them bigtime next year.
Bricker:
But neither case – whether neutral, negative, or grrrrrreat – represents an attack on Christmas. And I think that was part of tomndebb’s point.