Interesting how the cost of a lawsuit doesn’t bother you when it’s overtly religious groups doing the suing, like the church who’s paying the legal fees for the plaintiffs in Plano who were so mortally offended that they couldn’t bring red and green napkins to a “white winter” themed party that they had to drag the school into court, the ACLU having fuckall to do with that case. Or The Rutherford Institute, a conservative litigation group whose sole purpose is to threaten lawsuits and file lawsuits, most of which are intended to try to shove your Christianity down our throats in Public Schools or in our Courthouses, where proselytising is wholely inappropriate. Guess those are all ok, because they’re supporting your religion.
Oh the horror! The act of requesting only white napkins for a party has a chilling effect on the poor little children who are being forced not to celebrate Christmas in any way.
But no worries, they can just sue the school district, wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, even after the district modified its “distribution” policy to be more accomodating to them, because that’s a legitimate threat of a lawsuit. Yessir, we must not thwart our childrens’ ability to practice their religion by dictating the color scheme of a school party. As if that makes any damn sense at all. Talk about frivolous lawsuits!
Insulting people on the opposite side of the debate from you is so effective and mature.
I have a question for you: Do you think anyone (barring a radical and tiny Phelpsian fringe) has ever advocated attempting to limit or abrogate ANY of those rights? I mean, honestly, what country are you observing?
I’ve not said anything is “OK,” or “Not OK.” I’m not saying any action is good or bad, wise or unwise. I’m merely asserting that the actions EXIST.
If you’re pointing out that the opposite happens – that Christian groups threaten lawsuits in an effort to influence policy their way, then … I agree.
How about that? I agree. And I assume you agree with me that the reverse is true? Good. I also agree that one effect of such threats, in some cases, is to push into being a policy that is not in conformance with the law; that’s TOO religious.
Now, if you agree with me that the reverse is also true, then you’ve agreed with the point of this thread. Do you?
Oh fercrissakes, SA. Yes, I believe they have as much right to advertise christmas sales as they have the right to market The Christmas Poo. Let me know when someone infringes on that right and we can discuss it. Jesus… paranoid much? You have no argument. No one is trying to do any of the evil oppressive things your paragraph mentions. Which is why I didn’t respond in the first place. It’s not worthy of a response.
My position now is: The movement to stop unconstitutional government participation in religion has a chilling effect on constitutional religious activity.
No it doesn’t, Bricker. It’s about as far from chilling as it could possibly be (Oh! The Drama!!). Eliminating unconstitutional government participation in religion reinforces the constitutional rights religious folk have. The pisser is that it’s never enough for some people to simply have their rights protected. They’ve got to run their religion up a flag pole in hopes the rest of the world “catches on.” The government says your rights are protected. That doesn’t mean they’re supposed to help you advertise.
(a) Can you point to a post in which he not only expresses his general snooty disdain for Christianity, but actually outlines his desires and/or efforts to end Christmas? Seriously, he might talk a big game when it comes to insulting the very idea of being religious, but that doesn’t mean that, were he in power, he’d outlaw Christmas.
(b) Suppose you were right… is Der Trihs representative of enough people to make up a meaningful movement of any sort? How many of him do there have to be to be a relevant topic for discussion rather than a statistical fluke? I hope you’ll agree that, even in an environment as liberal as the SDMB, the hugely overwhelming majority of liberals and atheists and non-Christians, AND the hugely overwhelming majority of people who are involved in incidents such as the Plano one, don’t even remotely fit your claims? That’s part of why I’m disturbed about the way you talk about “Angry Atheists”. There are a pretty reasonable number of people who would qualify under a naive definition of “Angry Atheists”… they’re against “Under God” and “In God We Trust”, and so forth. It’s easy to find essays and arguments from such people, not to mention lawsuits. But even in THAT group, it’s hard for me to imagine that a significant group of people actively want to destroy Christmas.
So my problem is that you discuss them as “Angry Atheists”, as if that’s a standard position for “Angry Atheists” to hold. It’s like if I were talking about women’s rights, and talked about how Christian Fundamentalists think women should be 100% obedient to men in all things. Now, there is doubtless a super-tiny fringe of Christian Fundamentalists who DO think that, and there is also doubtless a much larger group of Christian Fundamentalists who hold vaguely comparable but far-less-odious views. Nonetheless, I’m going to make my point far more clearly and less provocatively if I say something like “…one group that might oppose us is a super tiny extreme fringe of Christian Fundamentalists who think XXX” rather than “…one group that might oppose us is Christian Fundamentalists who think XXX”.
Starving Artist, what on earth are you on about? Those issues in that post have been addressed in this thread. Why do you need yet another person to answer them? Well, since you seem to require multiple answers before it sinks in, allow me to respond (added emphasis mine), and ask a few questions of my own.
**SA: Do you also believe that, given the fact that we celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25, merchants should have the right to advertise Christmas sales and to display the word Christmas in their stores as this date approaches? **
Answer: Of course they should have the “right” and they do have the right. I started seeing Christmas items and displays in stores around here as early as Halloween, for goodness sakes.
My question: Who, specifically, is trying to abridge those “rights”? I mean that as, who is trying to make it illegal for merchants to display Christmas items and advertise Christmas sales?
**SA: Do you believe it’s just fine to advertise items for Christmas on the television and radio? **
Answer: Of course it’s fine! Why on earth wouldn’t it be?
My question: Who, specifically, is trying to deny advertisers the ability to advertise Christmas items on television and radio?
**SA: Do you believe people have the right to wish each other a Merry Christmas in public venues? **
My answer: Of course people have the “right” to wish each other a Merry Christmas in public venues! People tell me, a Jewish woman, Merry Christmas all the time, and I never, ever take offense. People even pray to Jesus for me, or offer the hope that Jesus will save me, and I thank them for their sincere well-wishes.
My question: Who, specifically is trying to abridge people’s “rights” to wish people a Merry Christmas in public venues? As in, what current or pending litigation exists, in what jurisdiction, attempting to make the wishing of Merry Christmas illegal?
SA: In short, do you think we have the right to speak, advertise and display items regarding Christmas in the same way that we do Thanksgiving, the 4th of July and Memorial Day,. . .
My Answer: Asked and answered above.
SA: . . .or do you think public advertising, display and mention of Christmas should be suppressed because it’s insensitive to people of other religions, or to those who are atheists, or to those who feel Christianity is an impediment to social change that they favor?
My Answer: NO! I am wholeheartedly against supression of free speech, even if it’s insensitive speech.
My question: Do you think public advertising, display and mention of “Holidays” should be supressed because it’s insensitive to Christians who think the only thing going on between Thanksgiving and New Years is Christmas, and feel that if Christmas isn’t specifically acknowledged that it’s an affront the the religion that they favor?
Not so. At least not as I read your posts in this thread. The entire premise revolves around your belief that even the mere threat of lawsuits constitutes some ‘something’ against Christmas, and that that is a Very Bad Thing with “chilling” consequences. If all you were trying to “prove” is the mere EXISTENCE of lawsuits, it would’ve been an even more ridiculous thread than it is! I can just see it now. . . “Resolved: Schools are being sued. Discuss.” “Uhm, ok, whatever dude.”
No, I’m trying to get you to quit using the Plano case as somehow being in support of your premise that threats of lawsuits are having a chilling effect in school policy, seeing as how the lawsuit in question in this case came from the other side – yours.
How do you figure that? One does not necessarily lead to the other. Besides which, I’m having a hard time figuring out what the hell the point of this thread even is anymore! Why should my agreement that religious groups are suing schools and religion-neutral groups are suing schools, have any bearing on my agreement or disagreement with some arbitrary concept that has something to do with chilling your constitutional rights or doing something bad against Christmas that I can’t even comprehend?!
Oh wait, maybe this is it. . .
No, I do not agree. The ongoing movement that has existed for decades, to stop unconstitutional participation in religion may have a slight effect on potentially constitutional religious activity, but I hardly see it as “chilling,” nor do I see it as a bad thing to err on the side of caution when it comes to ambiguous questions of constitutional law, and then let the courts figure out the details, one direction or the other. Frankly, I see the whole “movement” as a Very Good Thing.
I guess, maybe. But without all the inflamed rhetoric, that statement sounds like the same necessary evil we always accept for pretty much any other movement to stop bad stuff, particularly when that “bad stuff” is, well I’ll be damned, ANOTHER MOVEMENT in the opposite direction (which you continually ignore). It would be good if we could reduce the number of frivilous wrongful death lawsuits so that there wouldn’t be as much of a chilling effect on taking awesome risks. But, also, we wouldn’t want to do away with being able to hold people accountable for actual wrongful death.
I guess now I see the purpose for the inflamed rhetoric. Without it, there’s pretty much bupkiss of a controversy left.
I would hope that all religious leaders would be so conscientious that they would discuss this with their congregations regularly. With our nation’s history you’d think that most believers would be happy that the ACLU is there to monitor the separation we fought so hard for. It is the cornerstone of everything America is about! Sadly, people have lost sight of that.
No question, it’s been most oft observed in the breach throughout our history. But the principle is no less sound or necessary for its having been repeatedly flouted by activist judges with an interest in promoting their own religious beliefs, isn’t it? That, not a “clear reading of the text”, is how we get court rulings that for instance “In God We Trust”, when used by the government, actually refers neither to God nor to trust.
Yes, the Establishment Clause and the reasons for it has to be discussed, as it is the very *reason * for all of the efforts (whether real or, mostly, exaggerated and even imagined) that our interlocutor offers as evidence of a “War/Attack/Whatever on Christmas/Christianity/Religion/Whatever”. But, despite prodding, he’s no closer then he was 12 pages ago to telling us where the line declaring some state-sponsored religious activity to be constitutionally acceptable is drawn - quite disappointingly, for someone so certain it exists.
Now, 12 pages and inane hyperbole later, his point is “The movement to stop unconstitutional government participation in religion has a chilling effect on constitutional religious activity.” I think he is correct, that there is a minor chilling effect on some governmental agencies from conducting what may very well be constitutional activities. The problems with his point are, as I see it: 1) he’s blaming the movement to guard against the establishment violations for the chilling effect, which is just plain silly. He’s done this before, by decrying those seeking same sex marriage through the judicial branch as somehow responsible for the resulting backlash. 2) he’s downplaying or ignoring the multitude of governmental agencies that continue to attempt to actively circumvent the establishment clause; 3) he’s taken a long time to make the point and relied on poor examples and hyperbole’ and 4) he hasn’t shown me a reason to actually care. Whatever minor chilling effect exists, if any, is an inevitable result of the difficulty of determining what is an establishment of religion, and should not be blamed on those seeking to enforce the establishment clause. All in all, it’s a profoundly silly, sorely overstated point, but a point nonetheless.
Yet, your actual citations do not seem to demonstrate that chilling effect.
The Covington Georgia story starts out with a deliberate effort by the board to flout the law, changing (against the advice of their lawyer) the neutral and existing “Winter Holidays” to “Christmas Holidays.” They expressly did so for the purpose of endorsing Christianity (as samclem cited a page back):
The Oregon story does not involve either the ACLU or any references to lawsuits or anti-theistic thought.
The Plano story (still unresolved) is a suit by Christians to force the school board to recognize their efforts to impose Christmas on the school.
So here are three cases, prominent in your argument, where there was no chilling effect (or even ACLU involvement) until after a group had expressed a desire to enforce a bit of mild entanglement on the community.
Interestingly, the NY Times today reports on a town in Missouri where the protests of three chuch goers about a production of Grease has led to the banning of a production of the Crucible. The story notes that the teacher directing Grease cleaned up the “bad” language in it, but the biddies complaining objected to under 18 year olds gasp kissing and double gasp drinking on stage. Grease and The Crucible are the #2 and #3 most staged plays in high school. The Superintendant didn’t have a good reason for banning the Crucible, and even says he is not 100% sure he’s right, but is clearly afraid it would be too controversial in this very religious town.
So, while a War on Christmas has not been demonstrated, a War on Literature has been. I trust Mr. Bricker will jump right on the case.