Working on the assumption that despite appearances, I’m not actually on your ignore list.
I think it would be better phrased as “People who recognize this is no longer a 99% Christian populated country are seeking stricter enforcement of the 1st Amendment regarding the government sponsoring or sanctioning the influence of Christian symbols.” Given this, what weapon other than threatened or actual litigation do they have? Note, I asked the same question in post #36 and never received a response.
Why stop at calling it a “war?” Since we’re apparently allowed to redefine terms in any manner we feel like, why don’t we call it, “The Holocaust On Boobies?”
We should start by defining our terms. By “holocaust,” I just mean any attempt to keep boobies off of saturday morning TV. If we can agree that such attempts exist then we can agree that there is indeed a Holocaust on Boobies going on in this country.
The interview with the parents appears in John Gibson’s book, and is not available on-line. However, it supports the allegations in the lawsuit, and specifically recounts a meeting between the parents that would become the plaintiffs and the principal in which the principal told them no red and green napkins or plates would be permitted, as a matter of school policy.
My oh my, Bricker, if I could take as true all the allegations brought in all the complaints I see filed… (Which is another reason why your “What if I could show you six actions filed in court against Christmas” thing is meaningless. The kinds of stupid-ass lawsuits that are brought and thrown out every day beggars the imagination.)
Also, I’d still love a response to my post on the (now) previous page. Thanks! 
I just love the fact that you (apparently) own John Gibson’s book. That really tickles me.
That’s a perfectly fine weapon to use… in a war against Christmas. Certainly you may call it “seeking stricter enforcement of the 1st amendment,” and that would not be wrong… just as it’s not wrong to call a person “pro-choice” even though one side of the debate might prefer “pro-abortion” or even “pro-baby-killing.”
And that’s what you call a “war”.
This isn’t even worth Pitting.
Because all of the litigation has been aimed at specific entanglement of government and religion and has not been directed against any other Christmas displays that were outside the realm of government? And because they have been directed against all governmental entanglement with religion (prayers in school, Ten Commandments on courtroom walls, teaching of religious beliefs in biology classes, etc.) and not directed toward Christmas, specifically?
Theere is no war and if you still insist on calling it a war it is not directed against Christmas.
Bricker, I asked for a cite that the principal had said any such thing. As near as I can tell, neither of your cites qualify. This is important because there’s a difference between something being asked by the PTA and being asked by the principal: the former is not, as near as I know, a government employee.
If the principal told them, for example, that the party was a PTA affair and that private groups holding events on school grounds could determine teh color scheme for their events, the principal again acted in an appropriate manner.
That’s why I want to see something specifically citing what the principal told them.
Daniel
What reason have you to believe that the allegations are NOT true? The school district has now clarified its policy; they contend that the policy was never as the parents describe but they do NOT contend that the parents’ version of the meeting with the principal is wrong.
Bricker:
So if someone (a) is a practicing Christian, (b) celebrates both the secular and religious aspects of the Christmas holiday, and © supports (or initiates!) a lawsuit to force a city to, say, remove a giant creche from the lobby of City Hall, then that person is perforce engaging in a war against Christmas? Wow.
Bricker:
So if they deny that the policy was ever as the parents describe, on the strength of what authority was the principal allegedly speaking in the meeting? Anyway, I’ve got no particular reason to believe the allegations are not true. I just know better than to take at face value the claims alleged in a complaint, especially if they don’t quite pass the smell test.
See tomndebb’s reply. He said it better than I can.
With the current threshold established by Bricker of a dozen not-necessarily connected actions or threatened actions to determine whether or not a “war” is in progress, I think we could probably establish that there is a “war for Christian supremacy” and a “war for non-Christian exclusion” going on in the public sphere.
(I
From here.
Well, since the lawsuit claims to attach the letter in which those restrictions were promulgated as an exhibit (Exhibit 129), I think it would be rather bold of them to make a claim about what the letter said, claim the letter was attached as an exhibit, AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT. Wouldn’t it?
Or is that a tactic you’ve seen a lot?
Again, this – the pertinent part of your quote – is utterly conclusory. Requiring white napkins does not give rise to the twin inferences that (1) red and green were specifically disfavored (2) because of their religious and Christian significance.
Yes.
Absolutely yes.
This letter, it’s from the principal recounting the substance of his conversation with the parents?
(How did we get sidetracked into the stupid specifics of the Plano case when there are so many more substantive objections to your ludicrous line of reasoning?)