It used to be that the end of Thanksgiving merely signaled the beginning of the Christmas season. Yet, as current political movements are galvanizing on opposite sides of the spectrum, it appears that the end of Thanksgiving is going to start signaling another seasonal beginning as well: the debate about the "War on Christmas." The past few winter seasons have seen an increasing focus on the perceived degradation of the Christmas holiday and the decreasing ability of the average citizen to celebrate it in the public square.

Two of the most prominent figures in the pro-Christmas movement are national media figures Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson. Mr. O'Reilly, who hosts his own talk show on the Fox News Network, has dedicated several of his episodes to document his belief that current events are putting "Christmas Under Siege." Mr. Gibson, also of the Fox network, is the author of "The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought." Much of their scrutiny focuses on the shifting role of Christmas in public schools, government buildings, and corporations.

As an example, Mr. O'Reilly recently conducted an informal survey of the nation's leading retailers to ascertain whether they would promote the use of the phrase "Merry Christmas" among their greeters or the generalized "Happy Holidays." Many of the respondents to this survey indicated that the generalized greeting would be used for national marketing campaigns, but that greeters in individual stores would have the liberty to use the phrase of their choice. This sparked acute indignation with Mr. O'Reilly, who claimed that generalized greetings were "absolutely" offensive to Christians.

As with any political issue, an overuse of fiery rhetorical devices typically indicates a strong emotional connection to the issue, accompanied by a lack of substantive evidence. With terms such as "conspiracy," "plot," "ban," and "terrorize" being used to describe the purported movement against Christmas, this furor is no different. By highlighting specific limitations on the means used to celebrate Christmas, the debate is being framed as a matter of religious freedom, and can thus be viewed as essentially the newest incarnation of the ever-growing debate of the role of religion in the United States.

The misperception about the pro-Christmas movement is that its motive is not the protection of the religious freedom of Christians, but the expansion of Christian ideology into the public sphere. This desire stems from the perceived lack of proper public recognition of Christian religious celebrations. Yet, a threat to religious freedom does not become realizable merely because of the lack of use of the phrase "Merry Christmas" in retail stores. Not hearing this phrase while entering a Target should not constitute a limitation on an individual's personal religious freedom.

Regulations such as the inability of teachers to lead their students in holiday celebrations, or the inclusion of neutral holiday symbols along with a nativity scene in a public place are not restrictions upon personal religious freedom. By limiting the role of religion in the public sphere, the state prevents itself from creating conflicts of interest and avoiding actions that can create a de facto establishment of religion. The standard that the state should strive to achieve is the protection of individual religious expression, rather than the preferential treatment of the majority religion.

Although this debate can be resolved in a civil manner, the reactionary nature of the rhetoric threatens to further polarize both sides and create an even greater quagmire. Currently, the Reverend Jerry Falwell is creating a "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign," which seeks to squarely identify those groups and individuals who will support Christmas and those "grinches" who will not, with litigation and boycotts threatened means of retaliation. With this controversy quickly cementing itself further with the creation of groups like that of Reverend Falwell's, it is imperative that a reasonable compromise be found. Otherwise, you might find yourself having to decide: are you Friend or are you Foe?

Mike Skelly ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in finance and political science.