The War on Christmas Exists

” Con ASKED to be contacted but did not REQUIRE it. There is DDO functionality to prohibit unwanted challengers- Con could have made the debate impossible to accept. I made an honest mistake when I accepted this debate, and I apologize for not adhering to Con’s wishes, but I did NOT break any rules. This debate was open to accept so I assumed Con was fine with any challenger. At any rate this debate is happening and clearly we have substantial disagreements to debate. 2) Con talks about what he “meant” to do, but this debate only concerns what he actually did do. The R1 definitions left ambiguity to the Resolution, so I offered a reasonable interpretation. As I said in R1, Christmas is a non-physical concept so what constitutes “defeating” Christmas requires contextual interpretation. In the context of this debate, Con's definitions are: “to win a victory over Christmas in a war, contest, or game. ” “to cause Christmas to fail” “to control or overcome Christmas” These statements are nonsensical. Christmas is not a thing to be defeated in a contest, it cannot "fail," it is not an object that can be overcome. We need an interpretation that applies to Christmas as a cultural celebration. This is what I provided in R1 and what Con has failed to provide. The prevalence of Christmas and its entanglement with social tradition and history means that to “defeat” Christmas is to dethrone it as the pre-eminent winter celebration and diminish its importance. My interpretation of “defeat” is not arbitrary, it fits the context of the “War on Christmas. ” What constitutes “defeat” is very different in the context of the “War on Obesity,” “War on Terror,” and “War on Christmas. ” When people in the REAL WORLD talk about the war on Christmas, they mean malicious attempts to push Christmas out of the public sphere, diminish the importance of Christmas, and erode Christmas’ traditional role in society. Bill O’Reilly discusses the War on Christmas in way that perfectly fits my interpretation: “Every year. .. we report Secular Progressive assaults on the traditions of Christmas. .. The secular progressives want a new America and traditional Christmas isn't a part of it. ” . http://www.foxnews.com... Note that Con still has not explained his understanding of “defeat Christmas;" he has not yet given a definition of this phrase. Con says that the FFRF's actions are not a “War on Christmas” but at no point explains what he thinks a War on Christmas would be. How can Con say the FFRF isn’t waging a War on Christmas when Con can’t explain what a War on Christmas would look like? I have demonstrated that the FFRF is overtly antagonistic to Christmas, is trying to push Christmas out of the public sphere, and trying to diminish the importance of Christmas in our society. The FFRF’s long term desire is for the total abandonment of Christmas. This meets any realistic interpretation of an attempt to “defeat” Christmas. Con Rebuttals:1) I anticipated Con’s arguments in my opening round. 1st Amendment issues are merely the easiest way to wage a war on Christmas- a group interested in ending Christmas would do so by challenging public Christmas displays. Any attempt to push Christmas out of the public sphere is necessarily an attack on Christmas- these are attempts to defeat Christmas by people who view Christmas as a bad thing. Funding Catholic schools is irrelevant. There are good public policy reasons to subsidize private educational institutions; Con’s arguments are only relevant to this debate insofar as they demonstrate that organizations like the FFRF have a broader end-goal of fighting every manifestation of religion in our society. Con wants you to believe that the War on Christmas is only “a movement for equality,” but the evidence I have presented overwhelmingly demonstrates that the FFRF and other atheistic organizations engage in activity that doesn’t further any “equality” driven agenda. The atheists in Madison already had equal access to the forum where they placed their “Game of Thrones” religion sign. Instead of using that equal access to celebrate their beliefs, they used it to mock a nativity scene and put up hostile comments. The FFRF was not fighting for equality when it put up a billboard featuring Santa saying “there is no God” nor the American Atheists when they put up a billboard featuring a small girl saying “Dear Santa, all I want for Christmas is to skip church! ” . http://news.atheists.org... These are not attempts to “fight for equality. ” These are ad campaigns that try to subvert Christmas images and promote anti-religion politics. Con may say these billboards merely provide a minority a voice, but compare these billboards to campaigns by other minority groups such as the LGBT community. This community is recognized for its overwhelmingly positive campaigns that actually focus on raising awareness and promoting acceptance. "Equality” is not at stake when the FFRF tries to end a 50 year traditional nativity display. Equality would be fighting to establish its own tolerant tradition rather than tearing down the traditions of others. Con dismisses my 1a-g by stating “no one is trying to force people to stop celebrating Christmas" - this is irrelevant. Michelle Obama isn’t trying to force people to stop eating candy, but the war on obesity still exists. An organized effort to defeat Christmas can be accomplished by a number of antagonistic tactics. Con asks if the evangelism of Christian groups is a war on atheism- I loudly answer YES. Attempts by Christian groups to get rid of atheism absolutely constitute a war on atheism. Christians describe their efforts as a war; Chuck Norris talks about atheism as a “formidable foe” and says “I believe theistic patriots need to be wise to atheists’ overt and covert schemes, exposing their agenda and fighting to lay waste to their plans. ” . http://www.wnd.com... 2a) Atheists aren’t forced to practice Christianity, I fail to see the relevance of his claims to the debate. Christmas displays do not force anyone to celebrate Christmas. The article I cite demonstrates that the atheistic community views the War on Christmas as a culture war, making militaristic analogies between Christmas, Pearl Harbor, and Nazism and urging atheists to shun Christmas affiliated organizations. The article illustrates that the War on Christmas goes beyond an effort for “equality. ” A store displaying a “Merry Christmas” sign is not forcing anyone “to practice something in which you do not believe,” as Con states. But the article I cite asks you to shun such a store. 2b) A nativity scene and a star of David are both religious iconography that inspires reverential religious feelings. My argument is that the War on Christmas has led to the exclusion of Christmas imagery. Pro Rebuttal: Con’s argument confuses political “equality” with an “equality” of popularity. The dominance of Christmas is cultural. It is only “held up on a pedestal” because the overwhelming majority of people celebrate and enjoy the holiday. Political equality can be achieved by targeted political reform, but this is not what we see in the War on Christmas. The War on Christmas is a broad sweeping cultural campaign aimed at fighting the popularity of the holiday. The “equality” it seeks could only ever be achieved by attacking the popular front runner. Con essentially concedes this debate when he says of “a movement towards equality”: “the only realistic option is to diminish the importance of Christmas” Even if the end-goal of the FFRF is "equality," the tactics it uses are antagonistic attacks attempting to knock Christmas down. No matter what the end goal is, organized attacks are a war on Christmas. Pro can call the War on Christmas a “movement for equality” all he wants- but when a movements consists primarily of concerted efforts to tear down and attack a target, the movement is best described as a war. Imagine a group launched an organized attack on the US, claiming that the end goal was only to diminish the importance of the US so that all countries could be equal- not a war at all! We would roll our eyes at this assertion, knowing that an organized attack on the US constitutes a war regardless of the motives and goals. Con is wrong when he says the FFRF or only focused on separation of Church and State. My billboard examples disprove this, as do the antagonistic holiday placards targeted at Christian displays. Con is incorrect that all my examples involve government organizations, my b) c) and g) are not. Additionally, here is an example of the FFRF buying billboards solely to bully a church- proof that they have a broader anti-religion agenda: . http://www.charismanews.com... Con’s comparison of atheist placards stating “religion enslaves minds” to Civil Rights marches protesting voter discrimination and Jim Crow laws by facing police dogs and water canons is insulting. The Civil Rights movement was a fight against political discrimination, not a media and legal battle over a winter time holiday. I ask Con to please desist with this disrespectful argument. I have provided multiple examples of how the FFRF is not fighting for equality, they are fighting for a religion-free society. Should all of the FFRF’s perceived 1st amendment violations disappear overnight, the FFRF wouldn't close their doors and declare mission accomplished. Instead the FFRF would increase the already existing billboard and outreach campaign to promote secularism and fight the influence of religion in society. The FFRF’s broad goal is to eradicate the “intruder” of religion and Christmas.