imgresBill Donohue comments on the way secular activists are reacting to Christmas:

It never ceases to amaze me how down-right scared some secularists are of Christmas. Here are a few recent examples.

The University of Maine was forced to come to its senses only because it was too embarrassed to explain its hypersensitivity; it now allows religious symbols on the campus. But initially it banned not merely religious symbols, but any “decoration that could be perceived as religious.” That included candy canes. Candy canes: their mere existence at an institution of higher learning is what pushed the free-speech enthusiasts over the edge. They also changed their policy with regard to trees. Initially they were allowed, but not presents. That’s because presents remind people of Christmas, and that is unacceptable at Christmastime.

In Cambridge, Massachusetts they are so accepting of free speech that every known terrorist in the world is welcome to speak there. But not Santa. He was banned from a local public school winter concert.

An official at the southwest Anti-Defamation League advises everyone to avoid what she says is the “December Dilemma.” The “dilemma,” for the ADL, at least, is Christmas. Her solution? Dilute the significance of Christmas. She favors faux competition by encouraging schools to celebrate Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim holidays—even days that are not in December (she did not mention any Christian holiday that ought to be celebrated in December). According to her logic, ethnics of all stripes should press to turn February, Black History Month, into “Diversity Month,” celebrating all nationalities.

The central problem for all these deep thinkers is Christ. They can tolerate—even support—S&M training sessions on campus, but they have no stomach for candy canes, and certainly not crèches. Never underestimate the penchant for censorship and intolerance exhibited by secular fundamentalists at Christmastime.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email