Litigation is a tactic that has - of course - been reserved for attacks in the war against governmental involvement.
However, when a major retailer instructs its employees to NOT say “Merry Christmas,” that’s another tactic, not involving government, but a part of the war I’m describing.
This link just goes to the parents’ complaint. You can’t use the allegations to substantiate themselves. How about a copy of the letter?
It sounds like the candy canes contained a proselytizing message. What’s inappropriate about disallowing that kind of harrassment of other students?
Even if there is a case here (which I doubt), it still only amounts to one case of one school not being clear about the law. Is it your position that every memeber of that school administration hates Christmas and wants to get rid of it? Do you believe they’re hostile to Christmas as a holiday at all? I’m willing to bet that most or all of them celebrate Christmas themselves. What do you think?
Oh wait…I get it…you’re going to say they were afraid of a lawsuit. Well, they got sued anyway, didn’t they? So it turns out persecuted Christians have the same ability to use litigation as a means to pressure or intimidate schools into do what they want as the dirty secularists do. Maybe sometimes they’ll even be right. In those cases you should be thankful that the ACLU will be there for them.
Isn’t it fortunate that we have such a great legal system in place to resolve these kinds of disputes?
Any chance we could see a copy of Exhibit 129 and then judge for ourselves what it does or doesn’t say?
You are complaining of a broad-based movement trying to eradicate the religious aspects of throughout society. A secular school choosing a secular theme for a party hardly amounts to such a threat. Christmas and Christianity do not live or die by how Christmas is observed in the public schools. Most let out days before Christmas anyway. Homes and churches are the key venues for celebrating Christmas. Unless you can show that the secularation of Christmas is not confined to government-run venues, you have no case. (As for businesses, it’s up to the owner to decide how religious their public face should be, as any good conservative should agree.)
Because that’s the only substantiation he’s offering.
If there’s been a more absurd OP in GD lately, I can’t think of it.
No, it’s a private business owner exercising his right to run his business how he wants to. Employees are being paid to use whatever language their employers want them to use. If it’s their job to interact with patrons, then they are being paid to represent that business, not themselves. They serve as proxies for the owners. They aren’t allowed to say “fuck you” either. Does that infringe their first amendment rights? A business has a right to present itself in whatever manner it believes will be the most healthy for its sales. If a privately owned business believes that certain kinds of language used by employees will be offensive to its patrons then it has every right to restrict that language. The motive is not to “attack Christmas” but to make more money.
Bricker, more than the pro-choice vs. pro-death battle for language, what you’re describing here sounds more like a war on the establishment clause and/or a war on religious neutrality. The PISD and whatever major retailer are the defenders here. It’s the Christmasians doing the attacking.
How do we know that the PISD and the retailer aren’t expressing genuine desire for religious equality rather than fear of litigation?
Which could also be described as “defense of the principles enshrined in the Constitution”, right? Does the Constitution mean what it says and must be followed whether you like it or not, as you constantly claim, or is that concept to be applied only when you find it convenient and when it doesn’t create a conflict with your own particular brand of faith or political ideology? Your refusal to address substance is not helping you at all, you must realize.
No. The conversation with the principal was subsequent to the letter. That is, the letter lays out what purports to be the school district’s policy. After receiving it, the parents asked for a meeting with the principal, and during that meeting, he affirmed that the policy was as stated.
Gee, I don’t know. I wasn’t in favor of providing specific examples just yet, for PRECISELY this reason. YOU urged me to provide specifics.
The complaint is signed by an attorney. While I grant that allegations of a factual nature are not proven by their mere appearance in a complaint - else why would we have trials? - I don’t believe I have ever heard of a complaint that quotes a letter incorrectly and then provides the letter as an attachment.
sigh
My claim is that it happened. Your response says, “OK, it happened, but it was reasonable.” Fine. It’s a Just War on Christmas, in your view. I’m just trying to show the war exists, not whether it’s right or wrong.
Well, that’s what examples are. Each example is one case.
I’m not claiming that any of the other things you said above.
The Plano case case certainly makes a mountain out of a molehill, but in the light of the brouhaha, how goes the effort to ban red and green decorations from all public schools? I suspect that this year the kids can bring all the red and green napkins they like.
Given the amount of ink spilled on this case, it’s curious that the focus has remained on napkins with no clarification as to other red and green decorations, such as wreaths, are prohibited at school. If they are, the point is not that it’s anti-religious, but that it’s stupid. Christmahanukwanzturnaliyulestice is a multi-faceted holiday with many secular aspects that the religious aspects can be plugged into, or not, depending on the individual.
Yes. It turns out that both sides in the war on Christmas have access to litigation.
That doesn’t show there isn’t a war on Christmas. It just shows that both sides can fight. Indeed, I don’t think Christmas is in much danger. For every case of attack, there are probably ten public schools quietly having Christmas parties, with red and green napkins, and singing “Silent Night” at their concerts. But that doesn’t erase the cases I’m discussing.
Can you address my post #87 please, Bricker? Thanks.
I’d like to see an answer to this. Corporations hardly ever make a decision based on morality, much less as a conscious (if not concerted) part of a “war on Christmas” :rolleyes:
You could similarly claim that corporations are waging a “war on good taste” by refusing to play decent music on the radio, and with more evidence.
Ten? Ten??? What world are you living in?
Yes, they can. So in this particular battle of the war on Christmas, Christmas emerges the winner.
Of course, in order to win this battle, money had to be expended on litigation.
No, I didn’t. My post #33 replies to his post #17.
Yes, the Christmasians bought a victory in the war to force Christmas on the unwilling.
There most certainly are generals (or some equivalent source of central direction) – if not, it’s not “guerrilla warfare”, it’s just independent acts of armed criminality.