Bricker, are you interested in a particular “front” in this “war”? It seems to me the manger-in-the-town-square “battle” is different from last year’s new Happy-Holidays-vs-Merry-Christmas in retail rant. Are those defending the “true meaning of Christmas” really the same as those keeping Christ in gift purchasing?
Maybe specifics would help. Who are the aggressor and defending “Generals” in the war you see?
Nonsense. A required element (centralized coordination) of the orthodox definition of the term “war” is not in evidence.
Of course, you might be using your own definition of the term “war”. If so, then to communicate with you I’ll need to know what other terms you are redefining. (We might as well start with the three that made the notion famous: “alone”, “sex”, and “is”.)
I don’t see any possible way to achieve centralized coordination (an essential element of a “war”) without intent, so I’d say yes.
An odd coincidence, that.
Who is the enemy in this alleged “war on Christmas?” Who is the “they” that is allegedly attacking it?
This is a ridiculous, invented conflict. It’s just another ludicrous way for for the Christian right to try to paint itself as a perscuted minotrity. Not one Christian has had a single right of practice compromised. Not one person. Christian or otherwise, has faced the slightest impingement on their ability to celebrate Christmas.
There are certain things the government is not allowed to do but so what? Any attempt to force religious celebrations into the public arena is, in fact, enagaging in an attack on the civil rights of non-Chrustians. You are not persecuted just because you aren’t allowed to steal tax payer money to build a creche,
I think the OP has misstated the nature of this silly debate anyway. The people whining about the “war on Christmas” were not just complaining about the removal of some nativity scene somewhere, they were actually claiming that they were being victimized if other people said “happy holidays” to them instead of Merry Christmas. They were whinging and moaning that department stores had some sort of moral obligation to use the word “Christmas” in their advertizing. This whole thing was never about the rights of Christians but the arrogant belief of some of them that everybody else is obliged to celebrate their holidays with the same language and trappings right along with them.
I think a better question for debate is what the hell is the cause of the Christian Persecution Complex?
I think CJJ pretty much nailed it. As he (she?) and LHoD point out, the more egregious attacks on Christmas were either distorted or outright made up by Gibson, O"Relly and others. What you’ve got left falls into two categories.
The first is a debate about the role of government in Christmas celebrations. I think this is a worthy subject, though clearly much less important than the environment, the economy, or national security. Personally I don’t have any real problem with such governmental gestures as a national Christmas tree, as long as their are governmental shout-outs to other faiths. I believe Bush gave a shout out to Muslims on Eid, and lit a national menorah on Hannukah. That seems cool to me, especially since the Christmas tree isn’t a particularly Christian symbol anyway.
Second, some people seem to be very upset about the phrase “happy holidays.” This is utterly baffling. Is there a more pleasant and innocous phrase than “Happy Holidays?” Even Christians celebrate New Years as well as Christmas. And the phrase seems just a polite way to recognize the minorities that celebrate other holidays besides Christmas. Even Athiests mark the New Year. The yelling seemed to concentrate around retailers, and was really annoying when directed at low-paid holiday-stressed store clerks. In this context, “happy holidays” just seems good business sense. Why risk offending potential customers of the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist varieties?
For the life of me, I cannot see how “happy holidays” threatens lessens or degrades Christmas at all.
“The War on Christmas” is a term which seeks to blame liberals for a perceived attack on Christianity. It’s clearly inflammatory, and is a punditry strawman. Show me one group which has even discussed forbidding the practice and observance of Christmas by private individuals and churches. It sure makes a good rallying point for the Persecuted Christian Majority, though, doesn’t it?
It seems to me that the phrase “The War on Christmas” is really just a salvo in the Right’s “War on Liberals”.
Seeing as how you’re defining the issue into existence (by not separating “government sponsored” from “individually sponsored”), it seems to me that there’s little debate to be had; it’s a forgone conclusion that they exist…
The word “attack” implies an intent to do harm. It’s a particularly loaded word in this context, as it connotes that attempts to restrict government-sponsored Christmas celebrations are motivated by malice towards Christians…something which you, Bricker, have rightly noted is false.
You claim that using loaded terms isn’t unfair if they’re descriptive, but implying malice where none exists in neither descriptive nor fair.
Would you not respond that way as well?
I just find it amusing that a lot of the folks who believe there’s a vast left-wing conspiracy to “destroy” Christmas also can’t grok the idea that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy to destroy the Clinton Presidency – as if Richard Mellon Scaife and the rest of the new right are merely fairies in the mist, while a secret cabal of atheist liberals coordinate plots to rewrite “Silent Night”.
You’ll notice I said “red and green decorations” as opposed to red and green clothing. The former accurately reflects the policy of the Plano Scool District prior to the filing of the lawsuit, as your link makes plain. O’Reilly may have distorted the story to refer to clothing; I was working from the complaint, and reported it correctly.
Nope.
And here’s why: consider a school district threatened with an ACLU lawsuit. The school district may well cave to the demands simply to avoid litigation. This does not mean that the issue is “decided” by the legal system; no zealous advocate represented the other side before a neutral and detahced magistrate.
This sort of use of the legal system in other contexts is roundly criticized… the “SLAPP suit” - strategic lawsuit against public participation - is not a tool of justice.
I am willing to grant that the issues decided after a trial have been decided fairly. I disagree that the issues decided out of fear of the costs of litigation are decided fairly.
I don’t think there is a vast left-wing conspiracy. I doubt that the various actors threatening lawsuits coordinate their efforts. By the same token, I doubt that piranhas decide ahead of time which fish is responsible for attacking which juicy section of ankle. Nonetheless, even though each fish acts on his own, the ankle is well-nigh chewed away.
Bricker, you keep trying to discuss whether there’s a “war” designed to “remove the celebration of Christmas from the public sphere” while failing to explain how you’re defining “the celebration of Christmas in the public sphere” in the first place.
I’ve asked you twice now, ElvisL1ves has asked you once, so has black455. Your refusal to address this point is starting to seem just plain evasive. Could you please answer the question? Thanks.
Well now, wait just a darn minute. What choice does the ACLU have? The school district has done something wrong and only responds when a lawsuit is threatened or filed. Should the ACLU just write a sternly worded letter and leave it at that if the District chooses to ignore it? I would suggest that the reason the District caves is that there have been enough of these cases decided by a “neutral and detached magistrate” that they know they’ll lose and choose not to waste the money.
Bricker:
Can you provide any example of private or governmental individuals, organizations, or entities that have waged attempts to prevent private businesses, individuals, entities, or organzations from celebrating the Birth O’ Jesus?
In case that’s not clear, I am specifically excluding government entities as objects of the “attack” within the scope of my question.
Emphasis added. Since he said “public sphere”, why would you ask about the “private sphere”?
Government entities or activities are the public sphere. Otherwise, it would be private. We talk of public lands, public funds, public schools… Why is “public sphere” so confusing?
Public can also mean places that are open to the public.
But if a place is privately owned, it cannot reasonably said to be part of the “pulbic sphere”. I’ll let **Bricker **give his definition, but I don’t see any confusion-- public sphere is that which we finance in common.