So we can all agree there’s no “war on Christmas” in private worth mentioning? Good. :dubious: That’s at least a start.
Why put those two together? Certainly there’s a stronger sentiment than in the past, probably attributable to our increased multiculturality and secularity, that the Constitutional separation of church and state is a necessary thing, to be defended even in places it hasn’t been defended in the past. Would you care to address that?
In the private arena, you have not provided any *factual * instances to discuss, though you have (without apology or even retraction) put your fellow Dopers to the trouble of debunking several things you have offered up to us.
John Mace’s #18 asks for specifics as far as cases go. Examples:
[ul]
[li]the already-discussed Plano Independent School District’s edict, since repudiated, that students were not permitted to bring red and green decorations to the holiday party, and were not permitted to distribute religiously-themed gifts, even during lunch or recess.[/li][li]Memphis-Shelby County Library’s decision to allow a “Nativity” scene with a manger and shepherds but with no Jesus, Mary, or Joseph figures permitted[/li][li]Illinois state government directive to workers forbidding the words “Merry Christmas” at work[/li][/ul]
ThePCapeman’s post #21 asks about the attacking and defending generals I see in this war. As I’ve already explained since that post was made - but subsequent to YOUR post requesting a reply - I view this as akin to “guerilla warfare,” independent actions by independent groups. The question about generals is thus inapposite.
finally, Diogenes post #25: It’s unclear to me what point, specifically, requires a response. Post #25 suggests that this is an invented conflict. This would seem to to be contradicted by the examples raised thus far. The post then goes on to say that no Christians have had a right of practice compromised. That may be, but since I never claimed that Christians DID have rights of practice compromised, it’s a strawman assertion.
Perhaps, Gadarene, you could identify the specifics in Post #25 that require a response from me.
I disagree with your disagreement. While there are often cases of semi-independent cells that engage in various actions, I can think of no event that has been called a guerilla war that did not involve an overall guided movement. Truly autonomous groups all attacking a government are more likely to be described as the actions of individual warlords and each will be considered a separate guerilla war.
I do not really want to send you off looking for citations of some chaotic situation that got described as a guerilla war over which we can hijack the thread as to the appropriate naming of that event, but I think the general usage indicates my problem with your metaphor. There is no concerted movement to assault whatever you eventually define as Christmas in whatever you finally define as the non-governmental public sphere.
Instead, there is a general, population driven, secularization of the country that has resulted in a turbulent situation: people who recognize that this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country attempt to set new boundaries where everyone will feel welcome to participate in all of society while a small coterie of people who want this to be a 100% Christian nation (regardless of population) scream loudly that their hegemony is being wrested from them.
So, if I move into a neighborhood and I have small chioldren and my neighbor puts up a 14’ privacy fence because he is sure that my children will run havoc through his yard (even though they have not actually set foot on his property), I am waging a war on privacy or the peace of a neighborhood?
Since when does the overreaction of the ignorant become evidence that an aggression has occurred?
Gladly. First, though, I wanted to thank you for addressing the posts to which I directed your attention, and to point out that you missed CJJ* in Post #17.
I also confess that I was referring to a different portion of ThePCapeman’s post in #21, and I should have made that clear. Specifically, I’m interested in your thoughts on whether there’s a substantive difference (assertions of centralized coordination notwithstanding) between what seem to be “defensive” challenges to the War on Christmas – that is, the desire to preserve existing town manger scenes or other examples of traditional or status quo holiday celebrations in the face of secular attack – and “offensive” challenges, such as efforts to squelch the use of the phrase “Happy Holidays,” which has a specific and discrete meaning that isn’t simply interchangeable with “Merry Christmas.” Thus ThePCapeman’s references to “defending the true meaning of Christmas” as opposed to “keeping Christ in gift purchasing.”
This also ties into the questions raised in Diogenes’s post. He refers to the defensive/offensive distinction, and asks, “Who is the enemy in this alleged “war on Christmas?” Who is the “they” that is allegedly attacking it? . . . 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-Christians.” I’m interested to hear your take on that, and your general thoughts on where the Establishment Clause, and efforts to enforce it against perceived violations, fit into the War on Christmas framework.
Interesting that you should mention this one since the only other news items I could find regarding this institution was an organized action by a coalition of conservative groups to force the library to institute filtering on their internet connections in 1999. cite
Cite? I can only find this listed on conservative blogs/websites with no reference to the original story.
Can you cite the claim that the principal told the parents that this was the policy? If so, can you cite the claim that this is significant? According to the cites I have provided, the PTA (not the principal) asked for white napkins in keeping with a snowy theme. This is no more pernicious to my eyes than if the PTA asked for pastel colors for a Spring dance and asked parents not to provide crimson decorations.
I just don’t think there’s any there there. Most likely, it seems to me, some parents eager for a fight misconstrued the PTA’s innocent color recommendations as a deadly attack on God. This is like the war that dandelions wage on the Green Hornet.
And, more to the point, you’ve made it quite clear, in your own discussion of your support for Alito and elsewhere, that it’s vitally important that the Constitution be understood as meaning what it says.
Well, it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I trust you acknowledge that Christmas is primarily Christian, that Christianity is a religion, and therefore that government support of it is unconstitutional. So what is your objection grounded in? Is the Constitution only to be invoked when it says what you want it to say? Or do you, like so many others who share your party affiliation, place “God’s Law” above man’s Law with the exception that they’ll admit it?
Can you cite any examples of anyone trying to prevent privately owned places of public accomodation from celebrating, advertising or otherwise acknowledging Christmas?
How do you feel about the concerted efforts by some Christians to strong arm privately owned businesses into making more explicit acknowledghements of Christmas? Are those “attacks?” Are they appropriate?
Other than one unresolved and misreported case about Christmas decorations, you don’t seem to have much ammo here. I think your other (2) examples are perfectly appropriate instances of keeping the state from endorsing religion.
I think you also need to realize that vast majority of those who object to state endorsements of Christmas are people who themselves CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS.
The suggestion that anyone on earth wants to eliminate Christmas from anywhere but the government is ridiculous. Your entire premise is misbegotten and disingenuous. There is some public conflict about what is or is not appropriate in state institutions. Honorable people can disagree about that. It does not represent a “war on Christmas” and that phrase was not concocted to refer to technical Establishment battles anyway but represented a posture that individual Christians were being attacked if Walmart had a “Holiday Sale” or if someone said “Happy Holidays” to them (That’s not an exaggeration. Bill O’reilly lliterally and forcefully made the claim that saying “Happy Holidays” was “offensive to Christians”).
O’Reilly and Gibson also tried to bolster their persecution fable by citing several bogus cases of Christians being assaulted by those dirty “secularists” (who are those people, by the way? I’ve never seen one). I’m sure if you scour the country, you can find some examples of public schools misunderstanding the law or some parent somewhere bringing an unwarranted lawsuit. That hardly means there;s a trend or a “war” or anything for Christians to worry about. The ACLU is there for you if your religious rights are ever infringed.
People who recognize this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country are seeking to reduce the influence Christian symbols have. I am contending that one of the weapons used in this turbulent situation is the threat of litigation – and becuase of the costs of litigation, it’s a potent weapon. So why is wrong to call it a war on Christmas?
The Allies won World War II. It still qualifies as a war, however. The mere fact that after costly litigation was undertaken, the correct result was achieved, does not mean that the fight never happened.
That, alone, is EXACTLY a minor skirmish. In the aggregate, these sorts of events are a war.
Since threads inGreat Debates are frequently contentious and may bring up the advisability of legal action, would you propose we change the name to the War Forum? And what do you suggest for uniforms and standard weapons*?
Or maybe we could just drop this silly, inappropriate, inapposite and inane use of the term “War” altogether.
*I have a four-day old doughnut on my desk that has hardened into a menacing consistency and might have potential as a projectile, if it comes to that.
Frankly, the Christian Right’s war on sex seems far more harmful to me, wouldn’t you agree? If trying to rprevent government resources from going to promote a religious holiday counts as a war on Christmas, then trying to prevent network television from showing breasts surely counts as a war on sex.
