Just for simplicity’s sake, since this is such a long thread, can you post the quote here?
No, I don’t agree. Because some of the ACLU’s actions result in a chilling of the expression of Christmas. In other words, the ACLU has a vision of what measure of Christmas in the public schools and government is acceptable. And they fight for that vision. If a public school or government restricts Christmas celebrations MORE than the ACLU’s vision permits, they fight for Christmas. If the public school of government promotes Christmas to a degree greater than the ACLU’s vision permits, they fight against Christmas.
The only problem is that the ACLU’s vision is not the precise vision that the law allows for. That is, the ACLU’s vision is itself more restrictive than the law permits. Therefore, in SOME of the cases in which the ACLU is fighting against Christmas, they are in the wrong. In all of the cases in which the ACLU is fighting for Christmas, they are in the right.
No. Because even a sincere desire for the separation of church and state translates to an antipathy towards the celebration of Christmas when that desire is placed into action. A neutral desire to simply make more money cannot be considered a LOVE for Christmas, but neither is it antipathy.
MaxtheVool, outstanding post. You’ve summed it up beautifully. Too bad your questions continue to go unanswered.
No, it doesn’t, and I’m slightly disappointed that someone as usually intelligent and precise as you are would even try to make that argument stick. A sincere desire for separation of church and state can be held even by the most pious of Christians who certainly feel no antipathy toward the celebration of Christmas. Just because someone holds Christmas as sacred and celebrates it themselves wholeheartedly doesn’t mean that they think the government should be allowed to celebrate it wholeheartedly. Do you consider Siege to hold an antipathy toward Christmas? Polycarp? tomndebb?
That argument is one big fallacy.
Here you go. Happy to help.
Yes, you’re right. I should have phrased it better than I did. “Antipathy” was a terrible word to use, because it suggests purposefulness, and that’s exactly what I wanted to disavow.
A sincere and earnest desire for the proper separation of church and state can nonetheless unintentionally be an attack on Christmas, if that sincere and earnest desire is informed by incorrect information as to the proper bounderies for such separation.
A sincere and earnest Chrsitian may think, for example, that government employees are not permitted to called the federal holiday “Christmas” out of a sincere attempt at total separation of church and state. But that belief is, as a matter of the law, wrong. Were that sincere Christian to attempt to put that belief into action, it would AMOUNT TO an attack on Christmas, even though the INTENT of the person was not antagonistic towards Christmas.
As does any lawyer who agrees to take a case. I don’t understand what your point is. They take their case to the courts and a decision is made. Would you rather no one who felt they had a valid case regarding separation of church and state had a means to challenge a decision?
Says who? Sometimes they win, sometimes they don’t. Their vision goes before the courts just like anyone else’s does.
Bullshit.
Bullshit again. All it amounts to is a sincere desire for the separation of church and state. There are plenty of christians on these boards who desire separation of church and state and at the same time celebrate the religious aspects of christmas.
Bullshit yet again. If you don’t intend to do harm to an institution, it’s not an ATTACK. Attacks are premeditated with intent to harm.
Of the three categories I mentioned as examples, “angry athiests” are by far the smallest. Michael Newdow is probably a good example of the genre.
The number of people is small. But they are significant, because one person’s lawsuit can cost thousands of dollar even for a simple dismissal, at the earliest stages.
That’s why we have these in-depth, ten+ page discussions. If you believe that there’s an unspoken or ill-defined inference in an argument, point it out. It will be analyzed and dissected, and the truth will out.
In the discussion on Christmas, the “angry athiest” contingent is the least significant, least persuasive, and least effectual aspect of the actions I’m discussing. The vast majority of actions arise from sincere people seeking to implement some version of the separation of church and state. That has an chilling effect on legitimate expressions of religion in public schools and government settings.
But that mere fact that the “angry athiest” is the smallest contingent does not mean it’s imaginary. Here on the SDMB, there are people who would argue vociferously against “In God We Trust” on money, and “Under God” in the Pledge, despite the fact that those are legitimate, legal instances of government use of the word “God.”
In our present discussion, I agree that the “AA” crowd is of little significance, however.
Replace athiest with atheist.
So, it’s now a “chilling effect” on Christmas. I suppose we could’ve saved a lot of time if we started here rather than the War on Christmas, but then you wouldn’t have a ten page monstrosity.
That’s bizarre. I’m not an atheist, and I think “In God we Trust” should be taken off our money. But I guess that’s not germane to the “War on Christmas” thread we’re in. Let’s try to stick to the topic.
…such as?
As it should. Christians can express themselves in millions of ways. The fact that they continue to insist on doing it in the ONLY place they’re not allowed to amounts to a War on the Separation of Church and State.
They may be legal, but they’re not legitimate.
It’s of huge significance in the discussion of separation of church and state.
Welcome to the SDMB, OneCut. That was a wonderful post.
Bricker:
:rolleyes:
Are you going to provide a cite for that assertion either?
Then for pity’s sake tell us what the “precise law” is that allows *some * level of establishment despite the Constitution’s precise-to-the-rest-of-us text saying otherwise.
[qutoe]Therefore, in SOME of the cases in which the ACLU is fighting against Christmas
[/quote]
Sigh. You do yourself no good at all with such silly well-poisoning. After 10 pages mostly derived from your ducking definitions of terms, to resume the position you’ve already abandoned that there is a “war on Christmas” makes it appear that everyone else here is futilely using reasoning and facts against religious zealotry. While this *is * the forum for witnessing, under SDMB policy, to claim that what you’re doing is something else is inevitably going to get pointed out, and to your personal detriment and the detriment of all your other arguments as well.
Snaps here too to OneCut and Max the Vool. Bricker, you would help yourself immensely by taking some of the time you’ve spent posting about what you claim not to be saying, and using to read and consider just those 2 posts.
Well, they are currently, legal. I have never heard any argument that successfully supports the notion that they are legitimate.
What would you say is a valid way to determine intent? Do the people involved have to specifically mention a desire to harm, or can it be inferred from their actions?
Regards,
Shodan
Bricker:
ElvisL1ves:
To forestall the inevitable Bricker one-line reply that he has, in fact, disavowed the term “war on Christmas” and goodness, haven’t you read the whole thread, Elvis?, I’m gonna offer a brief translation of what Elvis means by his point above. Just in case it’s not crystal clear.
“fighting” = “war”
“against” = “on”
“Christmas” = “Christmas”
You may have disavowed the particular phrase, Bricker, but it sure still seems like you’re fighting the same war. Er, fight.
Yes, that’s true.
The purpose of debate is to… well… debate. I suppose I could have stubbornly insisted on not changing any of my initial ideas, no matter how well they were refuted. But that seemed foolish to me. I suppose, also, that I could have simply started with the correct formulation. But frankly, I didn’t know it. I started with what seemed the correct forumlation to me at the time. Cogent argument in the course of the thread convinced me to change my mind. Further argument may change it even further.
Isn’t that the way things SHOULD work here?