To me the “public sphere” is where we interact with strangers and society.
Then you admit that the use of the term “war” is inappropriate.
What jsgoddess said. I mean “private,” as opposed to “government,” but still within the public sphere.
If Bricker means “government,” he should say “government.” But so far, he has explicitly refused to do so.
That would be the defintion used in critical theory. Somehow, I don’t see **Bricker **as a critical theorists, but you never know. 
[del]explicitly** implicitly
If it’s privately owned, it’s in the private sector.
Would you contend that, say, Wal-Mart is in the “private sphere”?
I know this is a lame cite, but Wikipedia puts it pretty concisely:
Don’t make me go digging through Heidegger… please…
Well, as I said above:
I thought that 90% of what they teach you in law school is arguin’.
I have several thoughts on this topic, most of which have already been at least touched on by others.
(1) This entire issue is a very very minor and fairly interesting actual meaningful debate camoflaged by a name (“The War On Christmas”) which is a masterpiece of misdirection and disinformation, turning it into what appears to be a gigantic oppressive cultural crusade. Now, obviously, it’s standard practice to use slightly deceptive names (as you point out, “pro-choice” and “pro-life”). But there are limits to how far you can take that before it becomes unacceptable. Meaningful dialog on the troubling issue of abortion would grind to a halt if each side insisted on referring to the other as “baby-murderers” and “doctor-exploders”.
Why is “War On Christmas” so completely preposterously wrong? Well, two reaons. “War” and “Christmas”.
“War” is wrong because (to me, at least) “war” implies something organized and aimed and directed. If there’s a “war” there has to be an enemy, and an enemy army, and enemy generals. Even if there were lots of truly outrageous examples of things that could be called “attacks on Christmas”, I wouldn’t say it was a war unless there was some organization in some way promoting this position in a systematic and nationwide fashion. For instance, suppose that there were, tragically, two Columbine-style attacks in the same year, but totally unrelated to each other. Would it be meaningful to talk about the “War on High Schools”?
Worse than that, though, is the word “Christmas”. If there’s a war (or any other sort of attack) on something, and the war is won, what happens to the something? It’s conquered, destroyed, removed, blown away. If we win the war on drugs, it will mean there are no more illegal drugs. If we win the war on terror, it will be because there are no more terrorists. Thus, if there’s a war on Christmas, it seems logical that the people waging that war want to get rid of Christmas. Which is just preposterous. An effort (even if there WAS a unified national effort) to completely disentagle all public funds from any conceivable mention of Christmas is no more a “war on Christmas” than a push to start enforcing speed limits with more precision is a “war on cars” or a “war on drivers”.
(2) More than that, the very way the issue is presented is divisive and insulting. There is an interesting tension in our society as to precisely where the line between church and state should go. Some reasonable people might think that a Christmas Tree (with no crosses or baby jesuses) on the steps of town hall is perfectly OK, others might disagree. But if you just say “reasonable people can disagree about the precise location of the line on this tough issue”, then you don’t get to be a part of the general right-wing orgy of self-congratulatory liberal-bashing which has made Anne Coulter so rich and successful. Something which I tend to think that Bricker is above.
Good, then it ought to be easy and simple for Bricker to explain exactly what he meant. I can’t figure out why it’s taking him so long.
Especially since he said in post #2:
How about “Global Struggle Against Christmas”?
Er, yes it is – it implies a central coordination where (by your own admission) none exists. In effect, it allows you to float a conspiracy theory without carrying the baggage of being known as a conspiracy theorist.
On the other hand, I have never in my life heard anyone discuss the piranha war on mammals.
I echo the sentiments voiced above: a war that lacks a coherent goal and an organizing command may be considered a trend or a movement, but it can hardly be considered a war.
I’m afraid we cannot let you do that. The whole point of the “War on Christmas” silliness was an effort by one man to sell books and another man to sell air time. It only has meaning in the context of that phrase. If you wished to discuss some other topic, you should have made that the subject of the thread.
OK. I have considered it. I will now laugh it right out of the thread.
Based on the history of “prayer in school” and “religion in school,” I suspect that the ACLU has threatened (or actually filed) more suits to protect individuals from administrative harrassment than to intimidate administrations into eliminating religion from people’s lives. From my reading of many stories on these topics, a school has typically done a pre-emptive ban on a student praying to himself or herself, wearing religious icons, or reading a work of scripture and the ACLU has had to threaten or file suit to get the administration to actually read the law and recognize that those individual acts are permitted. Generally those prohibitions have been imposed by ignorant administrations that have never actually read about the Lemon test.
So, how many suits has the ACLU filed or threatened regarding the content (or naming) of school concerts typically held in December? Without an actual number of suits filed or threatened in each direction, your hypothetical is little more than O’Reillyan rhetoric.
Another example of the powerful and influential Piranha lobby in Washington.
Well, there’s the definition used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A place of “public accomodation” was held to be subject to the same anti-discrimination provisions as the government even though privately owned. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v United States
Silliest issue ever.
Do we have any examples of anti-Christmas operatives working to prevent privately owned places of public accomodation from celebrating Christmas, from using Christmas decorations or language in their advertising or displays, etc?
We DO have examples of Christians trying to pressure privately owned businesses into making more explicit acknowledgement of Christmas. I’m not aware of any attempt by the ACLU or anyone else to prevent those acknowledgements.
Sorry, I think you misunderstood my point (not that I helped you much), I was trying to point out that it is necessary for Bricker to define what he means by “public sphere” since there are instances of privately owned businesses being treated as public for all practical purposes. If you’ll read my first post in this thread, I think you’ll find I’m on your side.
Sorry. Mea Culpa. I would still like to address my questions to Bricker, though.
Not that I’m aware of.
Can you say “O’Reilly”?
Anti-discrimination doesn’t have anything to do with the freedom to pratice one’s religion on one’s property, though. A court can order a creche removed from a public school, but not from a department store or a restaurant.