Here we have a problem. The deliberative process for county school boards and city councils are generally transparent. The deliberative process for private companies are generally opaque.
I am asking the reader to infer motive based on the overall circumstances: the fact that there are similar attacks on the use of Christmas, some justified, some not, levelled where the deliberative process is public. I have no other evidence to offer, simply because no one is privvy to the internal deliberations of the Macy’s or Lowe’s decisionmakers. I grant that this is not as strong as direct evidence of the type that’s available for Eugene, Oregon’s, ban of Christmas trees. But it is evidence, nonetheless. You may not find it compelling evidence.
It’s not evidence at all. It’s conjecture. I still see no evidence that the phenomenon you are describing is anything more than a movement to stop unconstitutional governmental participation in religion.
How can you say that? I agree that neither the town logo issue or the church on the badge issue was an attack on Christmas – but then, I never offered up those examples. My examples included the Newton school board, which WAS an attack on the use of the word “Christmas,” and a threat by the ACLU to litigate. ACLU lawyer Craig Goodmark drove to Covington to speak to the Newton School Board, and laid out the ACLU’s claim that using “Christmas” instead of “winter” on the school calendar was forbidden by law. How is that not a threat?
There’s no problem at all. The first group consists of government entities, who are prevented from supporting a religion. The second group has full freedom to do so. Once again, why are you conflating the two? Everyone else here seems to understand that, and I certainly suspect you do, too.
So tell us, Mr. Proud Textualist: What does the First Amendment say and mean?
Your list of overall circumstances omits any mention of the law, as does essentially every post you’ve made here. You are about the last person on this board from whom that behavior should be expected, and you do owe us an explanation.
I believe that one of tomndebb’s points in bringing up the town logo and the church on the badge was to illustrate that the ACLU was inquiring generally about church-state issues, as opposed to targeting Christmas itself. My apologies to tom if that’s not what he was trying to convey.
There’s a difference between “It’s a natural progression of a pluralistic society[period]” and “It’s a natural progression that involves attempts to remove the word Christmas…[etc]”
The difference is illustrated, using a store as an example, if the store says “Let’s stop using the word Christmas [period]” compared to “They want us to stop using the word Christmas - let’s do so.” The former is happening. I just don’t agree that the latter is too.
I had thought by agreeing that there is no war on Christmas, you were agreeing that there are no aggressors sufficiently aggressive to say “war” is accurate. “Fear of litigation” can only be considered an aggressor when personalized. If a store opts to drop traditional Christmas phrases and trappings it may be
To be more inclusive of non-Christians (in hopes to boost sales)
Fear of litigation with no direct immediate threat, no one person or group identified as the one who would bring litigation (in hopes to avoid expenses)
Reaction to a specific threat of action if they continue in the traditional Christmas methodology.
If any store announces policy that diminishes “Christmas” it is not a war, nor a result of an “attempt to remove Christmas” if it’s cases 1) or 2). If the reason is not disclosed, I maintain the default inference is case 1) with case 2) a distant second. If you or anyone maintains case 3) has occurred, then it’s fair to ask, “cite?”
In short: Can you provide a clearer definition of “it” that is happening? Does “it” require active intention/action on the part of a real person or group with intent to actually diminish Christmas and its trappings for the sake of such reduction? If that’s “it” then, no I don’t agree that’s happening - at least not in a significant enough portion of society (maybe a kook or fringe or two).
Last year, Ford Motor Company was threatened with a boycott by a conservative religious organization over a different issue. Following a meeting with that group, Ford seemingly gave in and announced withdrawal of advertising from gay publications. Following a meeting with a group of gay advocates, Ford announced it would continue the ads. (more info)
Meetings with both groups were reported in the media. They are examples of pressure groups trying to influence a private business. Do you have any examples of this kind where a group has tried to get a private business to minimize or eliminate references to Christmas?
Except that the effect of this movement goes beyond that. The effect is to chill constitutional governmental involvement with religion. There is no constitutional requirement that demands a rule forbidding students to distribute religious-themed material at school. Yet the Plano School District imposed such a rule. There is no constitutional requirement mandating that the winter holiday season cannot be called “Christmas,” yet the Newrton School Board was threatened with litigation if they did that. There is no rule forbidding a nativity scene in a school production, as long as it’s balanced by other symbols and icons – yet the Mustang school authorities believed that they were required to remove the Nativity scene and were permitted to leave the other religious symbols.
No. If you’ll review the series of posts surrounding my concession of that point, I was persuaded because O’Reilly et al have used the phrase to refer to a host of activities that either don’t exist or have been hyped up beyond recognition. The phrase “War on Christmas” was pre-empted and given a meaning I didn’t intend it to have. For this reason, I discarded it.
Reaction not to a specific threat, but to a general, amorphous, perceived atmosphere, a desire to be “politically correct,” or to avoid potential but un-threatened boycotts or negative perceptions.
Bricker, given that the school’s attorney looked at all the facts in the case and concluded that they’d be better off removing the particular creche that they were considering, how can you be so confident in your judgment after reading a news story about it?
I’m saying that in some cases there is a Constitutional requirement to remove religious symbols, and when I look at cases closely, I don’t see very many where symbols are removed inappropriately. I trust the judgments of attorneys on the scene more than I trust the opinions of folks out to sell books, or even the opinions of messageboard attorneys whom I highly respect :).
Of course, it’s also fair to ask, “Cite?” for this option.
But because this is a reaction to a more general tone or mood, it’s much harder to cite.
For example, a store that started an affirmative action hiring program in 1967 may have been motivated by a specific threat of a lawsuit from the Department of Labor, or they may have been responding to the general tenor of the times, in which boycotts or lawsuits were possibilites, or they may have wished to increase sales by appearing to be integrated in their hiring, or they may have been genuinely motivated by an independent desire to expand their diversity.
If they were traditionally segregated or racially exclusive in their hiring before 1967, I suggest that the latter two choices are not as likely as the first two.
I did read that post. I came the the (obviously incorrect) conclusion you quoted because I didn’t think what you were saying was “yeah bad phrase because their hyped up activities give my hyped up activities a bad name.”
Irrespective: What about the rest of my post? If It’s not a <insert word that is not “war” here> if someone merely acts as if there’s an aggressor and takes a defensive stance believing there to be one.
It all comes down to this: Who is the aggressor? If not aggressor, at least: who is the actor? Who is trying to do the removing for the purpose of the removal? You’ve cited cases where, if you squint, can best be said to be “things that affect Christmas in the public sphere.” My call to you is to name names. Name one person or group whose slogan is “Down with Christmas” accompanied with the action they attempted to further that cause.
The attorney’s advice arose not out of his best judgement on what the law requires, but his best judgement on the interests of his client, which was a litigation-adverse entity. The attorney wasn’t asked, “Is this constitutional?” He was asked, “What should we do?” His advice minimizes the exposure to litigation.
I can read the law, specifically Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, which directly addresses the constitutionality of a Nativity scene intermixed with other secular and religious symbols.
Why does it come down to that? There is no such person or organization.
Again I refer you to the pirahna analogy. You can demand to see the individual piranha responsible for killing the cow, and I can’t show you a piranha that could have killed a rabbit, much less a cow. But in the aggregate, the piranhas as a whole can reduce the cow to a skeleton.