CHRISTMAS UNDER ATTACK.

Byline: Norm Fox For The Register-Guard

No such thing as a "war on Christmas," Scott Bellows insists in his Dec. 18 Commentary article.

Well then, let's agree on some other metaphor to describe the fact that Christmas observances that were traditional and noncontroversial for generations have been challenged and prohibited in recent years.

We have schools where it's not enough to ban Christmas parties; they have to ban red and green napkins at the "winter party." Schools where it's not enough to prohibit the singing of "Joy to the World"; they have to stop the band from playing it because someone might think the words.

The American Civil Liberties Union even tried to block "Frosty the Snowman" and "Jingle Bells" because they might bring something like "Silent Night" unconstitutionally to someone's mind.

We have public libraries where you can have a miniature Nativity scene, but only if you remove the figurines representing the Magi, Mary, Joseph and the baby Jesus. Cities that invite community organizations to enter a "winter holiday" light festival, but exclude a display spelling out, "Jesus is the reason for the season."

Let's at least admit that incidents such as these would never have happened a generation ago, and that something very deliberate has brought about the change.

If it's not a "war on Christmas," what shall we call it?

Bellows' article flatly denies that anyone is attacking Christmas, and goes on to focus on the usual anti-Christmas arguments: its origin is partly pagan; we're not sure of the date of Jesus' birth; it's overly commercialized and an excuse for excessive drinking; it's not the only holiday in December; and not even all Christians have agreed on its celebration.

None of this changes the fact that most Americans always have celebrated Christmas in some manner - and still do - and that organized attempts to oppose this tradition are of quite recent origin.

Furthermore, no one is obligated to overindulge in spending or drinking, and most people don't. As Gregory of Nazianzus preached on Dec. 25 in the year 380, "Let us keep the feast, not after the manner of a heathen festival, but after a godly sort; not after the way of the world, but in a fashion above the world."

American presidents traditionally have recognized Christmas and the divine truth that it celebrates. Even before Congress declared it a federal holiday during Ulysses Grant's presidency, every president made Christmas proclamations linking the season to Christ's birth.

After his White House years, John Quincy Adams described the central position of Christmas in America's spiritual and political life. On July 4, 1837, he asked, "Why is it that next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and venerated festival occurs on this day? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior?"

Adams added that the Declaration of Independence "laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets 600 years before."

Later, during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt declared, "Here at home, we will celebrate this Christmas Day in our traditional American way because of its deep spiritual meaning to us, because the teachings of Christ are fundamental in our lives, and because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing the significance of this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortal Prince of Peace."

President George W. Bush's radio address on Dec. 21, 2002, referred to "the great blessing that came on a holy night in Bethlehem," and added, "For over two millennia, Christmas has carried the message that God is with us."

But notice that this year, even this conservative Christian president was pressured into eliminating the term "merry Christmas" from his Christmas card. The term "happy holidays" is not objectionable in itself, but when it is a euphemism that totally replaces the `C' word, some kind of conflict (if we prefer that to "war') is going on.

Secularists who want to suppress the Christian significance of Christmas think the United States has an official, national legal holiday that we shouldn't really talk about - especially on government property, including public schools. In reality, there is no legal reason for this opposition to Christmas. Every year, Alliance Defense Fund attorneys provide school officials with court documentation for the following:

No court has ever ruled that the Constitution requires government to censor Christmas carols, eliminate references to Christmas or silence those who celebrate Christ's birth.

No law bars anyone, including students and teachers, from wishing others a "merry Christmas," or even distributing Christmas cards with scripture references.

No law prevents schools from teaching students the true meaning of Christmas, or from portraying that meaning in artistic displays, dramatic presentations, carols, etc.

No constitutional principle requires schools or governmental units that acknowledge Christmas to give equal acknowledgement to the holidays of all religions.

Of course, these legal realities have not prevented courts, government agencies or school districts from making contrary local pronouncements. Allegedly following a constitutional doctrine of "separation of church and state," rulings have produced thousands of results such as these:

Schools sponsoring seasonal celebrations of non-Christian religions (Ramadan, Hanukkah, etc.) while prohibiting Christmas observance.

A library inviting an artist to display her paintings, but then demanding that one painting depicting a Nativity scene be removed.

A display in a city park allowing a Jewish menorah, but disallowing a Nativity scene.

An elementary school bowing to one parent who objected to its traditional "giving tree," which had encouraged children to give Christmas gifts to disadvantaged children in another school.

Centers for seniors and disabled citizens telling residents and clients they cannot have Christmas celebrations.

The Air Force Academy officers' club being required to remove all angels from its Christmas tree.

A school allowing students to write holiday notes to American soldiers only if they would avoid reference to Christmas.

A housing management company ordering homeowners to remove a Nativity scene from their own front yard.

The ultimate humbug, a school disappointing their children by canceling a scheduled trip to New York City to see a Broadway production of "A Christmas Carol."

Oh, not a "war on Christmas," I suppose. But it's not exactly a Christmas party either.

And how many of these stories (samples of thousands) could have happened 20 years ago? A CBS poll found 64 percent of respondents think Christmas is "becoming too politically correct." They seem to notice a cultural change that is not to their liking.

In a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, 58 percent of respondents thought that the public display of Christian holiday symbols was "more under attack this year than in past years," and 42 percent would go so far as to use the term "war on Christmas."

Eighty-three percent thought Nativity scenes should be welcome on public property.

Some people argue that in the spirit of inclusion, we should at least accept new terms such as "holiday tree." But the fact is that the tree in question is used to celebrate one particular holiday, the one that starts with a "C" and is a legal federal holiday.

If we want to believe there's not a war on Christmas, then let's be willing to say the word out loud and stop acting like our latest discovery in the Constitution is the phrase "separation of Christmas and state."

Norm Fox is an elder at Garden Way Church in Eugene and editor of The Times and the Scriptures, a current events curriculum. Fox can be contacted through www.timesandscriptures.com