HOW HE SEES IT Secular fanatics attack Christmas

By JAY AMBROSE
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE
To insist that the placing of a nativity scene in a government building at Christmastime represents an effort to establish a state faith is a laughable absurdity, and there's an appropriate way to describe those who carry on about it: secular fanatics.
A fanatic, after all, is someone who is irrational and extreme in devotion to a cause. The cause in this instance is keeping the government from trying to impose a faith on the population, the sort of thing that happened repeatedly in 16th century Europe, leading to wars that killed tens of thousands.
Is it rational, then, to suppose that some creche-displaying mayor is the non-violent, perhaps subtly conniving equivalent of a Protestant king who wanted to end Catholicism with swords and spears, or of a Catholic king who thought it his God-given duty to quell the Protestant heresy by exterminating Protestants?
No, it is irrational.
Isn't it extreme to suppose that a public-facility display that is specifically Christian is something more than that -- a wrecking ball that will break down the wall between church and state?
Yes, it is extreme.
There is, of course, another argument against the displays, one that is not constitutionally based. It is that some non-Christians are offended by any governmental acknowledgment of Christmas beyond a "Happy Holidays" sign or maybe a tree. Maybe some are, and if that's the case, you cannot help but be reminded of the old fairy tale about the princess who demonstrated her royal sensibilities by feeling a pea under 20 mattresses. After all, a nativity scene or the word "Christmas" in lights does not signal anyone's exclusion. The message is not that other faiths don't count, or that those of no faith should get lost. The symbolism does not proselytize.
The symbolism is rather a means of acknowledging that Christianity -- a faith that is central in the development of Western civilization and woven deeply into American lifestyles and perceptions -- is what inspired us to celebrate Christmas in the first place. If the risk of offending someone should be a principal guide to the decisions of public servants, they might consider the offense to at least some Christians of officially treating their holiday -- holy day -- as a nonreligious, good-time occasion.
None of this is to say that the cause of keeping government out of religious advocacy is itself unworthy.
Inner discovery
Allowing freedom of religion is more than a formula for avoiding nasty wars. It is a means of allowing religion itself to flourish, of allowing thought to range widely and of allowing individuals to undertake voyages of inner discovery in which they may define their purposes and the meaning of their lives. Deny or disrupt the quest and you risk denying people their humanity. I hold to a faith, but forcing it on someone else is contrary to my understanding of that faith, and it is contrary to the civic principles I embrace.
Common sense surely instructs us, however, that putting up Christmas displays that really are about Christmas is no more an affront to religious freedom than the government's letting employees have a day off on account of Christmas, no matter what their religion. It seems to me that it really does take a fanatic -- a true-believing, secular fundamentalist -- to be an absolutist on the issue, to say with ironclad determination that we must have no whiff of religion anywhere near a government building lest we lose something of vital import.
It seems to me it requires people so obsessive about their cause that they no longer have that sense of proportionality that tells most of us when a polite nod or quietly voiced disagreement is a more appropriate response than loud protests and lawsuits.
The interesting fact is that, at a time when there is much wringing of hands about religious fundamentalists in America, it is the secular fundamentalists, the secular fanatics who have been winning their way. Maybe the words "under God" have not been yanked by court order from the Pledge of Allegiance yet, but given the drift of things, would it surprise you if this did happen at some point? On the other hand, I suspect you would be surprised if prayer were reintroduced into public schools.
Unless we see major change, the secular fanatics will win this fight about nativity scenes, and when we see them coming, we'll just have to whisper "merry Christmas" to each other, hoping no offense is given if the words reach their ears.
X Jay Ambrose, a former editor of newspapers in El Paso and Denver, is a Scripps Howard columnist.