The media is picking up the bullhorns on another pet issue--the claim that political correctness is taking "Christmas" out of the holidays, from Target's use of "Happy Holidays" as a greeting to the Bush's sending a "Happy Holidays" card to their hundreds of contacts, made most directly and often by Bill O'Reilly on Fox. Let's examine this for what it really is.
First, Christmas is by no means a dirty word either commercially or on the public square. Christmas trees, Christmas lights and other Christmas symbols are everywhere in every store, on every street and in almost every public office. Ruth Marcus does a good job of debunking the claim of the banishment of Christmas from mall and square in her Washington Post editorial, here.
Second, those Christians who are answering Bill O'Reilly and Pat Robertson's calls to arms in this so-called "war against Christmas" should perhaps stop to consider the proper relationship between church and state. Christians should be the ones most concerned about government use of Christian religious symbols and most eager not to have any sect's particular religious beliefs adopted by the state. Most persecution of religious sects comes when a government is identified with one sect and uses the power of government to discriminate against other sects. That was the fate of Christians for many years in countries with established, non-Christian religions. That is one of the problems at the core of undemocratic countries in the Middle East that apply religious muslim law instead of secular law.
Third, the celebration of Christmas--candlelights, trees, reindeer, and Santa--has become so prevalent that even those who practice different religions now often celebrate the holiday, to the extent possible without betraying their own religious underpinnings, in order to prevent their children from feeling excluded from the social life around them. It is entirely appropriate that commercial establshments like Target and Wal-Mart should try to reach out to this group by being all inclusive rather than excluding them in the way they handle the holidays. Having greeters say "Happy Holidays" includes Christians and Jews, Muslims and agnostics, Kwanzaa-celebrators and non-believers. Having greeters say "Merry Christmas" excludes everyone but Christians. Isn't the former better, especially for a commercial establishment that sells goods related to events for all those faiths?
Fourth, the secular "holiday" part of the Christmas holidays is something we can all share and enjoy without worrying that it is taking away from the sacred "Christmas" part of Christmas, which is something much more personal and spiritual and non-commercial. We should be thankful that stores realize they cannot be the locus for Christmas, and that there is a difference between the commercial "holiday" and the religious "Christmas" celebration. See this column by Charles Madigan, here, in the "Can you believe it" perspective of Sunday's Chicago Tribune. Madigan notes that "the last thing in the world I want is for somebody to imply that Christ will be happy if I use my credit card to buy some dandy power tools for my sons."
Why, then, this concerted attack on the attempt to make public parts of holiday celebrations more inclusive and less religio-specific? The claim that it is necessary because Christians are the victims of religious prejudice in this country is simply wrong. It is really an attempt to impose a religious majority's own religious views on all aspects of commercial transactions. Plainly said, it appears to be an un-Christian bit of bullying.
The media participation in rallying this victimless cry of victimization may be an effort to spur a mass movement based on emotional reactions (that come, no doubt, from heartfelt beliefs) to detract attention from other issues. We saw that in connection with the 2004 elections--pitting people who believe in the traditional family against the many different faces of family life today, pitting people who want the right to own guns against families worried about the danger to their children in communities where assault weapons are more numerous than pets, pitting people who believe that conception should be treated as marking the onset of a separate, rational life against people who believe that viability is that point.
This emotional use of deepfelt values issues detracts from real conversations we should be having about poverty, racism, violence, and the actions our current government is taking to change the boundaries between government action and private action, between church and state. It is another example of an area where the corporate-owned media have failed in both the issues they bring to attention and the way the issues are discussed.