I don't agree, Munson, that it should be called "Christmas Break" for the hell of it. My argument is with those who run around demanding that "Christmas Break" be changed to "Winter Break" due to incorrect assertions that it violates the First Amendment. As I've said before, it doesn't.

If it's called "Christmas Break," leave it alone. If some place has always called it "Winter Break," so be it.

I think you're taking a comment I made as a joke a little more seriously than intended. Yes, Jesuits educate their students excelently. I have one particular friend from Jesuit I took philisophy courses with at SMU. Between his Jesuit background and my Yeshiva background, we literally had students leaving the class in tears (ok, it was only one student, but there was another who declared her undying hatred for us).

I too went to catholic school for sixteen years and the terms holiday break, Christmas break, winter recess were used interchangably by various people.

Mdphl writes

All I am saying is I choose my battles and don't make every issue in life one of utmost importance. Everyone on this board has the right to express their opinion on whatever issue motivates them, and I expressed mine.

As far as the Eagles go, well lets just say that sports can illicit moments of passion in people during the the heat of the moment. Believe it or not I do have a pulse. wink That is not necessarily the same as taking a position or not, on the issue of the day.

I too went to catholic school for sixteen years and the terms holiday break, Christmas break, winter recess were used interchangably by various people.

Mdphl writes

All I am saying is I choose my battles and don't make every issue in life one of utmost importance. Everyone on this board has the right to express their opinion on whatever issue motivates them, and I expressed mine.

As far as the Eagles go, well lets just say that sports can illicit moments of passion in people during the the heat of the moment. Believe it or not I do have a pulse. wink That is not necessarily the same as taking a position or not, on the issue of the day.

MIB, you forgot Kwanza! Now I just know you also celebrate Kwanza, being the politically correct being that you are! Why the panty-bunch over this issue? First of all, it's AUGUST! Secondly, is there nothing more pressing on your docket to worry about? Remember, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. Try to smell the roses today. It will do you a world of good.

Kwanzaa??? Here's what a rather liberal black friend of mine says about Kwanzaa: "A 'holiday' invented by black folks to take away the spotlight from Hannakuh and Christmas." I was rather shocked to hear him say this, but he went on to call it a useless "day of mythology." Remember, this is coming from a black man, too.

Yes – well every group has its dissidents and hacks that deny who they are.

Some Jews worked for the Nazi’s, some Blacks in the south kept slaves, and some Gays supported the DOMA and work for the current Administration.

BTW – Karenga started Kwanzaa as a syncretic cultural festival; not a religious or commercial one - as your friend should know.

R

[ August 22, 2005, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

let's get away from all that other stuff and re-focus on what started this thread in the first place.

MIB.... You stated that you wish people would leave it alone and let it be called what it has been called for years.

I told you that you were mistaken. Per YOUR OWN SOURCE, we found out that the name that had been used for years (21 years to be exact) was "winter break".
The people 'sweating the little stuff" weren't the "winter break people". Rather it was the christian fundies who decided AFTER 21 YEARS to change the name to "Christmas break"

I will ask you again the question you have so far ignored and refused to answer.

If your central tenet is to "leave things alone if it's been that way for years", why aren't you FOR leaving it as "winterbreak"? Why aren't you criticizing those who pushed to change it to "christmas break? instead of the other side?

As a Christian, I think that in order to show tolerance it's necessary to respect the beliefs of others and realize that not everyone celebrates the same holidays that I do. They can call the time off from school "Winter Break" or "Holiday Break" or whatever, it'll still be Christmas Break to me, but I don't see any need in forcing others to acknowledge my beliefs. (just like I don't think its necessary to display the Ten Commandments in courthouses just for show when so few actually practice them)

Man, I wish I had checked out this thread sooner - I missed MIB having the hissy fit to end all hissy fits.

But a couple of points:

Christmas as a federal holiday - although a few Jews I know are appalled by this, most see the practicality of the situation. Although the world most assuredly is NOT Christian and most of it ignores the Chistmas holiday, America is different. If something like 80 - 90% of Americans consider themselves Christian, and celebrate Christmas, then there is a hugely pragmatic reason for the legal federal holiday - the government can't run on the 10 - 15% of the people left who aren't celebrating the holiday. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Rather it reflects some pretty decent human resources management.

"Christmas Break" - Now had MIB actually come up with a case where a jurisdiction actually changed the name of their break in response to a First Amendment lawsuit, he might have had a point. But since we know the jurisdiction in this case actually went with Winter Break for years, only changing it to Christmas Break recently, I think we can assume this was a case like the Ten Commandments fight - an attempt by a small minority of radical "Christians" to reclaim their sense of political and moral superiority to others. Those constantly crying about how this is a "Christian" country, and wanting the nation to reflect that, are typically not that able to demonstrate the true values of Christianity.

It is highly likely, in fact, that an overabudance of concern regarding the feelings, versus the rights, of non-Christians prompted the change to "Winter Break" in the first place, much as it has prompted television networks to go with the bland "Happy Holidays" or stores to discuss buying "holiday gifts." In that way they are most embracing, and don't have to list all the various holidays people may or may not be celebrating. Again, this is not a First Amendment issue, but rather the tougher question of how to respect all people in a society where a large portion of us belong, at least in name, to one religion. I too think we have gone too far, but not because of legal issues.

Incidentally, at my Catholic school, we had "Christmas Break" and "Winter Break," but the latter was in February, around President's day. It was customary in New England for the schools to try to save money by shutting down the schools for a week in mid-winter, and reduce heating costs.

Well, your friend is sadly ignorant about this holiday, because Kwanzaa is not a DAY, but a MULTIDAY cultural celebration. Each DAY is governed by a different cultural principle. CULTURAL, not religious. Maybe he ought to figure out what Kwanzaa is before he spouts off about it. But then again, birds of a feather (or is it "jurists" of a tribunal)....

Ung, I was trying to be more general and not limit my disagreement with the one Washington case. It was my intention to have the thread address the whole issue of "Christmas Break" v. "Winter Break." My error if I was too unclear.

I love you, too, CPT.

I do that purposely, trying to get you Kool-Aid drinkers to think for yourself once in a while instead of sounding like clones of the talking Left all the time.

Where have you been the last couple years? The ACLU, easily the most dangerous organization in the United States right now, has gone after several school districts over the last couple years, threatening lawsuits unless they changed the wording. Too cowardly to face up to the ACLU, these districts caved.

Both he and I are well aware that it is a holiday that spans several days, and that it is cultural and not religious. This is the main reason he tells me it's useless, or as he told me this morning when we chatted about it: "...a week of meaningless 'me too-ism'." Interesting.

Please provide one actual example of this. The one you initially linked to had NOTHING to do with the ACLU UNTIL the decision was made to change the name from Winter Break to Christmas Break. Even then, no lawsuit was ever filed:

Now that state language seems more restrictive than the federal language, so Levine may have had a case. Oh, and it is not clear (again, this was a link to Faux News) whether Levine was acting in an official capacity when he wrote the letter - perhaps he was a concerned parent who overstepped his authority.

The article also does not discuss the reason behind the name change. In too many parts of this country, as I previously stated, members of the AmTaliban want their perversion of Christianity worshipped by all - or at least declared the first among equals of religion. If that was the reason for the name change, I would have a problem with it too.

Incidentally, according to your own source, such an issue has NEVER been the subject of a court decision, so there can't have been a lot of people suing about it.

Now, it is true that the ACLU has sued a number of school districts for having prayers before official events and other clearly religious preferences (e.g., "Intelligent Design"), but I sincerely doubt they would ever bring a case like this, for the simple reason that I mentioned above - calling the time off Christmas Break would be factual - they are closing down the schools because most people will be celebrating the Christmas holiday. Just like schools on Long Island who shut down for the Jewish holidays, because such a sizable percentage of their student body would take those days off anyway.

The reason we have seen "Christmas" and Christmas greetings become less Christian-centered is not because the ACLU is out there hounding people to never discuss their religion. It is because advertisers and the media don't want complaints about not embracing all potential consumers. Sure, I see that as a problem as well - I think they have gone too far and should not ignore the fact that most people celebrate Christmas - but I am not blaming the ACLU for that.

I find it deeply disturbing that a supposed Judge, someone who has sworn on a Bible to protect and defend the constitutions of his state or the federal government would attack the ACLU as "the most dangerous organization in the United States".

The ACLU's sole purpose is to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States, to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantee:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

I find your attack loathsome and dispicable.
If you can no longer defend the constitutional rights which all Americans are guaranteed, then I suggest you resign your position and find something more suitable.

The ACLU will be there to guarantee your rights to do as you wish.

My sole question is WHY aren't YOU a member?

Rob

You can continue to be blinded by the ACLU's dangerous actions, especially in the War on Terror, but I will not. It is an organization that represents a threat the likes of which we haven't seen in some time. You are more naive than I thought.

No surprise, a New York chapter of the ACLU is suing the police for searching bags in the subway system. We knew this would happen because the ACLU has opposed nearly every anti-terror measure authorities have come up with since 9/11.

Here's how nuts this organization is: The ACLU opposes allowing the feds to have floating wiretaps that would monitor cell phone conversations of suspected terrorists. It opposes American civilians assisting the border patrol — you remember the ACLU went to Arizona to monitor the Minutemen. It opposes profiling of suspected terrorists. It opposes military tribunals to try captured terrorists. It opposes coerced interrogations of captured terrorists. It has demanded that more pictures of Americans abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib be released, knowing that would help Al Qaeda recruitment.

The ACLU opposes the sharing of information about suspected terrorists and sued to stop New York state from participating in MATRIX, the Multistate Anti-terrorism Information Exchange.

Even the U.S. Senate recognized how ridiculous the ACLU has been when the Senate voted 98-0 to slap the ACLU in the fase with respect to that organization's views on the Boy Scouts.

[ August 22, 2005, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

And you sir, are far more dangerous than I ever imagined.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " B Franklin

Actually, I should thank you. You have just made up my mind. I am tripling my donation to the ACLU this year.

Rob

[ August 22, 2005, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

In Pennsylvania, a school district and parents are arguing over whether or not to ban all Christmas celebrations, including the singing of Christmas carols, after the ACLU threatened to sue.

In Colorado, the ACLU has threatened to sue a school district over Christmas celebrations, including the singing of "Jingle Bells." The ACLU claims that Jewish students don't feel "safe or welcome" in the school when Christmas is celebrated.

In TN., a school district changed the words "Winter Break" to "Christmas Vacation," raising the ire of the ACLU. Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee said, "They're now on record as being totally insensitive to the religious diversity in the community." When pressed as to what her organization may do as a result, she replied, "...all options are being considered, including filing suit to prevent this unconstitutional change."

In August of '99, the ACLU of Ohio filed suit seeking to end a suburban school district's practice of closing its schools for the Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. In its complaint, the ACLU sought a permanent court injunction to block any religious holidays from being observed as special off days.

Just a few I've listed.

Spare me the Franklin, quote, IT. I am quite familiar with it. At least I would know when to use it. Your use is improper, for I have never in this thread claimed to support the curtailing of certain rights in the name of security.

Is that the only bullshit you can pull out of your paranoia-filled hat?

[ August 22, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

But with no verifiable citations. I suppose it's to be expected since from the beginning of this thread you've been unable to make a coherent argument.

Yeah, jq, I just made up all those examples. Get real already, will ya? I swear, some of you people are just so damned blind it's pathetic--mindless robots marching to the same playbook.

You're as bad as those right-wing idiots who will never ever admit Bush has made mistakes.

And you're a small minded reactionary anti-intellectual who can't be trusted with a basic citation. I don't believe you. If you have the cites to back yourself up, it's going to be easy to embarrass me. If you don't.... well, that pretty much proves the point. I would point out that the cases you bring up are probably going to be fairly easy to debunk if you do come up with the citations, but that's entirely up to you.

You're being ridiculous now. The examples I gave you are all true. I doubt news outlets make this all up, you know. I just relayed what is in the public domain.

In a post above you stated "You can continue to be blinded by the ACLU's dangerous actions, especially in the War on Terror"

The Republican led wave of "anti-terrorist" activity, all in the name of national security, launched one of the most serious civil liberties crises our nation has ever seen.

An immutable characteristic of our nation is freedom. If we allow the interests of "national security" to take away our freedoms, we surrender what it is to be American.

What is wrong MIB, forgetting your own drivel these days?

My quote was accurate and appropos.

You however have yet to respond directly to a single point of any of my arguments, or to answer my question.

Rob

All I'm asking is some indication of what those news outlets are and maybe an actual location. Ohio's pretty big. It's got a few school districts in it.

You've demnostrated a veracity deficiency in the past. It's not ridiculous to assume that you're lying now.

Don't lump me into the group of right-wingers who believe we should wipe away our rights. Perhaps you haven't read some of my other threads.

Regarding the Patriot Act, I do NOT think it should expire. I am comfortable with parts of it, uncomfortable with others. Unlike you, apparently, and way too many others, I don't turn on the left-wing media outlets, hear their tired, old talking points on how the Patriot Act is wholly bad, then come here and repost this crap.

I prefer to study it on my own, disregarding those right-wingers who praise it as infallible and those left-wingers who condemn it as completely unconstitutional. It's neither.

Speaking of this Act, I have yet to hear of one case anywhere in the U.S. where someone was unjustly harmed by actions as a result of it.

Wow. This thread is truly amazing. It's like the blob. Remember the blob?
It was so cool
oozing through the movie theater
mindless
massive
blobosity

Don't ever accuse me of lying. Ever.

JQ -

In defense of MIB (God i can't believe I am saying that) at least the two middle cases he stated in CO and TN are in fact almost accurate.

Both DISCUSSIONS with local authorities began with the request of local residents who felt that their civil rights were being violated. In both cases the strict seperation between Church and State.

I believe in the CO case at least one parent with a child who was a member of a school chorus objected to their preparation of a 'Christmas Concert' including several Christian religious hymns and carols, and yes the concert was to include 'Jingle Bells'.

The TN case was again a case where a group of fundamentalist Christians petitioned their local school board to change 'Winter Break' to 'Christmas Break'; the board acceded to their request against the protests of of several minority members attending the meeting.

In both cases the ACLU began discussions with local authorities, but not court actions, to ensure that the constitutional rights of minority students were not infringed upon by a local Christian majority.

I am not familiar with his other citations.

R

Your wish is my command:

NY Times: Five Muslims to Sue U.S. Over Border Detentions
April 20, 2005
By ANDREA ELLIOTT

Five American Muslims will file a federal lawsuit today after they and dozens of others were detained last December by United States border agents as they returned home from a religious conference in Toronto, their lawyers said.

The Muslim men and women, all American citizens who live in New York, said they and others were held up to six and a half hours at border crossings, interrogated, photographed and fingerprinted simply because they told customs agents they had attended "Reviving the Islamic Spirit," a large annual conference organized by Muslim organizations in Canada. None of those detained had engaged in unlawful activities, their lawyers said.

Border agents near Buffalo searched the cars of those detained and confiscated some of their cellphones after they tried to call lawyers, according to the complaint their lawyers plan to file in United States District Court in Brooklyn. The three men and two women include an orthodontist, a teacher, a hotel manager and a graduate student, and are represented by lawyers for the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The complaint charges that the detention, interrogation and other treatment of those held by customs officials violated their constitutional rights.

Homeland Security officials have acknowledged that at least 34 people were stopped by border agents after attending the conference. In response to questions about the suit, Valerie Smith, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said: "The mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect Americans from terrorism and the mission of Customs and Border Protection is to prevent terrorists and their weapons from entering our country. It is incumbent upon Customs officers to be right each and every time. Terrorists only have to get it right once." She said she could not discuss the details of the case.

Agents asked a woman who said she was seven months pregnant to prove it by
lifting her shirt. Some women cried as agents pressed their hands to
digital fingerprint scanners.

After three hours, one woman with children became agitated and suggested
she was going to leave. "We're going to send a car after you to get you,"
the officers said, according to officials at the Washington-based Council
on American-Islamic Relations.

The Muslims (All American Citizens) were told, "you have no rights." by one Customs supervisor.

A few hours later, U.S. Customs officers at the airport detained a University of Chicago academic and made jokes about Muslims.

None of those detained were ever charged with any crime.

----------------------------------
MAS
By Jason Halperin
AlterNet
April 29, 2003

Two weeks ago I experienced a very small taste of what hundreds of South Asian immigrants and U.S. citizens of South Asian descent have gone through since 9/11, and what thousands of others have come to fear. I was held, against my will and without warrant or cause, under the USA PATRIOT Act. While I understand the need for some measure of security and precaution in times such as these, the manner in which this detention and interrogation took place raises serious questions about police tactics and the safeguarding of civil liberties in times of war.

That night, March 20th, my roommate Asher and I were on our way to see the Broadway show "Rent." We had an hour to spare before curtain time so we stopped into an Indian restaurant just off of Times Square in the heart of midtown. I have omitted the name of the restaurant so as not to subject the owners to any further harassment or humiliation.

We helped ourselves to the buffet and then sat down to begin eating our dinner. I was just about to tell Asher how I'd eaten there before and how delicious the vegetable curry was, but I never got a chance. All of a sudden, there was a terrible commotion and five NYPD in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.

"Go to the back, go to the back of the restaurant," they yelled.

I hesitated, lost in my own panic.

"Did you not hear me, go to the back and sit down," they demanded.

I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging in age from late-teens to senior citizen. One of the policemen pointed his gun point-blank in the face of the waiter and shouted: "Is there anyone else in the restaurant?" The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen.

The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Hispanic men were made to crawl out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them.

After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and bathrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, no less than ten officers in suits emerged from the stairwell. Most of them sat in the back of the restaurant typing on their laptop computers. Two of them walked over to our table and identified themselves as officers of the INS and Homeland Security Department.

I explained that we were just eating dinner and asked why we were being held. We were told by the INS agent that we would be released once they had confirmation that we had no outstanding warrants and our immigration status was OK'd.

In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

"You have no right to hold us," Asher insisted.

"Yes, we have every right," responded one of the agents. "You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation."

Full Story here


----------------------------------------

Would you like a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand other instances?

Or are you simply blinded by the dogma and rhetoric of a morally bankrupt Administration?

Rob

[ August 22, 2005, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Or you'll what? Be pointedly obtuse at me? Your righteous indignation is flattering, but ultimately empty. To use one of your favorite tactics, I didn't accuse you of lying, I merely asserted that the possibility that you are lying is not beyond the realm of possibility. This is quickly getting to the lady doth protest too much stage.

Probably right since many of us have caught "Judge Wampner" in past lies. Annoying, but what are ya gonna do?

As I said, don't ever accuse me of lying. As a human being, I may be in error, but I do not lie.

Oh! The irony.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. You finally came out of yet another closet. Thanks, Sweetie.

Can't wait for Winter Break, it's been awfully hot in Dallas.

Well looky there, I'm all out of troll food.

And I can't wait for Christmas Break--no such thing as "Winter" in Dallas--since I'll be spending the holidays in Texas.

Live in the Windy City and you'll know what "winter" really is.

MIB, didn't you learn sharing in kindergarten? Is it all those things you said that liberals are above just to include others on our country who we know have different values and customs? Isn't it better to find a word that works for everyone? I don't care about all the blah blah blah reasons for doing it except it is kind to others, respectful, and not so damn one-way.

But why is it always kind/respectful/etc. to the nonbelievers or anti-religionists? If something is labeled as "Christmas Break," how about being kind and respectful to the overwhelming majority of people who celebrate Christmas and leave it as is?

Because it's exclusive by nature. I always try to put myself in the other guy's shoes and wonder if it were me, and I was the minority, the one susceptible to everything that minorities have to abide, how would I feel? How would I feel knowing that my religion isn't the one that my school cares about? I just don't like treating people that way and would like to include them, and making a minor sacrifice like a "name change" for a break just seems more Christian to me, more loving.

And this is where so many Christians come off looking totally mean, not at all like Jesus.

Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water. For one thing, it would never end.

Sure, minority rights are well-respected by our Constitution, but in many things, majority wishes carry the day solely because they're the majority.

I'm not arguing legality, I'm arguing more philosophically, I guess. This is just a simple "Do unto others" example.

But the most prevalent subscribers to the Bible seems so many times the ones least willing to actually try and live by it.

This has nothing to do with the Bible, much of which is rather mythological.

Of course it does, it's the thumpers that went and changed the law back in your article. It had been "winter break" for 21 years when the thumpers decided it had to be changed back to something in Reagan's day. Who was making the big deal? The guys who changed what had been going on for 21 years. Those are the people trying to reclaim 1948 or something. Those are the disrupters.

OK. Whatever you say.

MIB, wow, the caseload must be light as a feather this week....what with all the multiple postings and topics all in the same thread! You may want to switch to Tang. The Kool-Aid is really eating your brain.

Surely you could do better than that, miller. Your creativity is lacking.

Just on you, sweetie. I save my best for those who appreciate it. You are not on that list.