Saving Christmas By Killing Common Sense

<> The year might be winding down for most of us, but those who are in the business of producing jeremiads are just entering the peak of their season. As if high heating costs and depressed folks offing themselves weren’t reasons enough to make us dread December, the ever-ready punditry tells us we have a war to look forward to; a war on Christmas. Given the importance December 25 holds, both as a religious holiday and a cultural and commercial phenomenon, its demise would spell trouble for many of us. Fortunately, there is one small thing that stands in the way of this impending doom – the fact that the so-called “war” on Christmas doesn’t exist.
Before we can delve into this illusory war’s many fictions, we would do well to learn who authored them. Not surprisingly (for those of us who have been paying attention), the evidence points to the FOX 'News' (and I use that term loosely) crowd. Fox anchor John Gibson is peddling a book entitled “The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.” His general sentiment is echoed by fellow Fox personality, Bill O’Reilly, who laid blame with “far left. It's the loony left, the Kool-Aid secular progressive ACLU America-haters. That's who's doing this.”
Outside the FOX realm, Jerry Falwell’s ironically-named Liberty Counsel has devised a Christmas Campaign, whose sole purpose, as far as I can tell, is meddling in the affairs of local governments and making sure they celebrate the holidays the “right” way. Lastly, fulfilling the role of the whiner….er…..aggrieved victim is none other than Patrick J. Buchanan, who claimed the use of “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” constituted a “hate crime against Christianity.”
Given the strength of these reactions, you would think that Christmas was on the verge of being outlawed under the penalty of death. Instead, something a tad less dramatic is taking place: a few cities (Boston and New York among them) are referring to their Christmas trees as holiday trees and a few department stores are sticking with “Happy Holidays.” Gasp! The horror of it all.
It should be abundantly clear to all that these actions don’t constitute a war. First, there is no evidence that the governments of Boston and New York City acted in league with one another. Second, it is the prerogative of city governments to determine city policy. It isn’t Jerry Falwell’s business what Boston chooses to call its tree any more than it’s my business to say that a mayor somewhere in rural Texas can’t issue a proclamation naming a day as “Jesus Day” (actually George W. Bush did this when he was governor). And third, did anyone explain to O’Reilly and Gibson that NYC and Boston represent the exception rather than the rule?
It also bears mentioning that the blame is being placed on the wrong people here. As Michelle Goldberg noted in a recent Slate piece, the ACLU stepped in in 2003 to defend the right of teenagers in Massachusetts to pass out candy canes with religious messages. Pretty suspicious behavior for a group that’s “out to get” Christmas. Also, the idea that “Christian” and “liberal” are mutually exclusive is absurd, if not downright insulting. As John Gibson conceded in a National Review interview, even the Kennedys “celebrate Christmas with vigor.” Add to that Jimmy Carter, Martin Sheen, and the God-invoking Barack Obama and I begin to wonder who, exactly, these Christmas-hating liberals Gibson alludes to, can possibly be.
So, when all is said and done, do these folks have any real grievances? That depends entirely on the answer to one very simple question: are individuals prevented from freely celebrating Christmas in public? If that is the case, then yes, there are complaints to be had, and I will join in among the complainers for the sake of the First Amendment.
But before we jump to that conclusion, let’s first establish what ‘freely celebrating’ really means. In order for anyone to freely celebrate anything, they must do it with their own means and of their own volition. Any kind of taxpayer-funded holiday celebration does not meet these criteria. You have no right to take my money and use it for a religious display. Christmas trees, however, are not religious; the Supreme Court ruled that they are secular symbols. As such (and especially in light of their possible pagan origins), throwing a hissy fit when they are called ‘holiday trees’ is ludicrous (nativity scenes, on the other hand, are another matter entirely).
‘Freely celebrating’ Christmas also does not extend itself to telling others how they should or should not celebrate the holidays. This is especially true of private enterprise, such as Macy’s. From a business perspective, using “Happy Holidays” in lieu of “Merry Christmas” makes sense: you draw in those who celebrate Kwanzaa, Hanukah, Festivus and all other occasions while sacrificing only the tiny amount that would be offended by such a switch. But even if it was a poor business strategy, it would still be Macy’s prerogative – you can’t tell them what to say in their stores any more than I can tell you what to say in your home.
That brings me to my final point: the distinction between private and public. Suppose, for a minute, that every city decides to go the way of New York or Boston and every department store went the way of Macy’s. Christmas would surely be dead, right? Think again. Every Christian would still have the unfettered right to celebrate Christmas in his or her own fashion in the comfort of his or her own home, at his or her own church and with his or her own family. In fact, even if you were to take down every public Christmas display in the United States (a measure which I would find distasteful, to say the least), the only ones not celebrating Christmas would be the homeless and those who wouldn’t celebrate it anyway.
When all is said and done, the “war on Christmas” really boils down to a war on secularism by an increasingly insecure group of gadflies and zealots. December offers us many possible perils, including snow, ice and about half a dozen actors uttering “bah, humbug” in lousy made-for-TV movies. But a “war on Christmas” isn’t on anyone’s wish list and those who are dreaming it up have been naughty rather than nice.