How is that different from “2) Fear of litigation with no direct immediate threat…” if I amend it to be merely "Fear of retaliation with no direct immediate threat…? The point I was trying to make, of course, is a “war” takes two parties. If one person in isolation becomes afraid, without that other part it’s not a battle/war/word-that-is-not-war.
Is that, however worded, the substance of your “it” that is happening? If so, it’s definitely not restricted to Christmas. We had our annual Garden and Pond Tour cancelled last year because the year prior someone tripped and sprained their ankle. They didn’t sue, but organizers were afraid the next time they wouldn’t be so lucky and sought to buy insurance. It was too pricey and they cancelled. Same recipie, no? Not a war on gardening or anything close, right?
Yes, you can read the law. But you can’t read the specifics of the case in that law. The cite says that the play was planned to end with a manger scene; it may be that the scene was sufficiently removed from the rest of the play (especially given how it was tacked on, not originally in there) that it constituted a separate religious expression, not an expression in the context of other religious expressions. You and I can’t know that, but the district’s attorney could.
False analogy. You could easily say “piranhas did it, and not rabid chickens.” Even so, it’s not a war on cows (or something like war).
If you’re saying society is the school of piranahs, then that would name society as the aggressor. That is to say, “society wishes there to be less Christmas.” Is this the point we’re debating?
If we saw this happening all over the country, with focus on garden and pond tours, then I’d argue that there was an “It” related to gardens and ponds.
Well, no. Because most of society either is neutral or in favor of Christmas, I believe. But there is a small minority of unconnected folks whose actions drive these results.
I have to say Bricker, I am a bit confused about the ACLU’s role in this “war”. You see becuase they have done things like suing to allow a student to hand out candy canes with religious messages. That, to me at least, constitutes fighting to protect Christmas in the public sphere. It seems as though the ACLU is fighting on both sides of this “war”. Do you disagree?
Indeed, given the disparity between religious folks’ perception of the ACLU and the reality of the ACLU’s actions, I think you could infer hostile action being taken by certain unaffiliated people to deceive Christians about civil liberties and those who protect them.
As far as I know, this part of things is completely one sided. The unwashed nutjob hordes did threaten boycotts against “Happy Holidays” offenders. But no group threatened counter boycotts if places like Target caved into this pressure.
This is a clear example of “PC” being employed on the side of the religious right, rather than the other way around.
These anonymous, unconnected folks - are they threatening law suits, or contributing in some indirect way to a climate of fear of lawsuits? If you’re claiming the former, then of course that claim must be backed up with a cite. If the latter, then yeah that’d be hard to demonstrate so if that’s where you’re coming from I can agree with you.
But does that constitute something special with respect to Christmas going on? I mentioned the Garden Tour. While I have no direct evidence, I suspect ours was not the only Garden tour to wrestle with the issue. As a former Boy Scout leader, I and fellow leaders wrestled with fears of litigation when considering actions. Those higher in the organization developed strict reactionary policies out of such fears. Where I work, when we moved into our new building, we ixnayed a plan to provide on-site day care, as well as an on-site fitness centre - again out of these fears. Oh, and some organizations may be making policy about the use of the word Christmas on such fears too.
So can we try this on for size: “Reactions to Feared Lawsuits that Affect Many Activities including Christmas - revisited.” Have we reached the end of the debate?
Then would it be fair to paraphrase your positition as: The movement to stop unconstitutional government participation in religion has an unintended chilling effect on constitutional religious activity.
Because that seems quite different from your OP (my emphasis added):
Around Christmas, there was an example in Raleigh of a woman who objected to Crabtree Valley Mall’s Merry Christmas wishes, IIRC. She was roundly ridiculed on these boards and in the national media, and Crabtree rightly ignored her protest.
That’s the only example I’ve heard of, and I think the cultural response to it demonstrates that campaigns against private Christmas celebrations are not remotely effective, indeed are likely to have the opposite effect in which people deliberately patronize a business offering such celebrations.
Alternatively, since they are succeeding in making money every year without bothering to pander to Gibson, O’Reilly, and Falwell, then there is not really any hypocrisy involved except on the parts of Gibson, O’Reilly, Falwell, and their ilk. Merchants are in business to make money. If this silliness had any relationship to profits, it would have already made itself felt.
The phrase (and attendant hype) is over five years old. Aside from letting Gibson, O’Reilly, and Falwell line their pockets with sales of their own hypocrisy-based pleas, it has not actually resulted in either a renewed Christian spirituality or a shift in sales between merchants who use the word “holidays” and those who use the word “Christmas.”
The change has not been “sudden,” except in geological terms. I have already pointed out that “Put Christ Back Into Christmas” predated the birth of several participants in this thread and that a review of popular entertainment demonstrates that the public has failed to support religious themed offerings for fifty years or more. If this (glacially) sudden change was supposed to backfire on them, then it should have already begun to happen. I suspect that you are in error.
If it makes you feel better to pretend that you did not deliberately refer to one of two parallel examples, ignoring its counterpart while claiming that the one proved some point, then you are welcome to your warm feelings. Of course, you also had to ignore the fact that the decision of the council was made deliberately to flout the law, making a lawsuit more likely, but then I suspect you need to take that approach to maintain your level of comfort, as well.
Bricker, I am still not seeing your point.
From my perspective, we have a general societal trend in which a more pluralistic society tends to drift away from all religious themes (meaning that a diminution of “Christmas” references is simply part of a general decline in religious references and not aimed at Christmas.
We also have a general trend (perhaps reinforced by the former) to insist on a more rigorous implementation of the Establishment Clause, so that religious Christmas themes are opposed when governments attempt to continue to entangle them. Again, Christmas is not a target, but is simply one of many visible signs of a movement that is not directed against Christmas.
As to letters from the ACLU, I am puzzled why queries regarding Christmas are supposed to have seriously chilling effects while letters (and actual lawsuits) supporting the rights of individuals have no similar power to cause entities behave correctly. To me, that seems to be more cherry picking. When the ACLU opposes public display it is scary but when it defends private display it is a creampuff. Somehow that seems odd.
I can imagine an SUV owner who writes his Congressman to urge passage of the Kyoto protocols, too.
That’s not the best analogy here. The ACLU is, I think, internally consistent. Some of what they stand for constitutes an attack on Christmas. Some is neutral with respect to Christmas, and some is favorable towards Christmas.
Perhaps a better analogy is this: I support the general liberal position on the death penalty. I am opposed to the general liberal position on minimum wage. What is my position vis-a-vis liberals?
Yes, I think that would be a fair restatement. Frankly, I woiuld not have agreed with that restatement at the beginning of the thread, but as the discussion has developed it’s become clear to me that this is a large part of what’s happening.
Hmm. I think I can agree with that restatement, with the caveat that I think the effect is pretty small, especially when compared to how big media pundits are making it out to be. But yeah, it happens.
I applaud your frankness, Bricker. I think you have demonstrated that there is likely an unintended chilling effect. This only leads me to more questions… To what degree?So what?Whose fault is that? But these are probably best left to other threads.