Verified by 
Cross-Cultural Psychology
The War on Christmas, Reindeerless Santas and Plain Red Cups
Why conservatives are sorta right (but mostly wrong) about the war on Christmas.
Posted November 9, 2015
Well, it’s finally here: the 2016 “War on Christmas.”
In my forthcoming book, The Myths that Stole Christmas, I argue that the war on Christmas is a fantasy. Historically, claiming that a group is waging a “War on Christmas” has been an extremely effective way of demonizing that group. Henry Ford did it to the Jews in the 20s, the John Birch Society did it to the Communists in the 50s and 60s, and now Fox News does it to liberals. The latter is part of a “Christians are persecuted” narrative that galvanizes their base. But as I say at the beginning of chapter 2, given the ubiquity of Christmas celebrations every November and December, if there is a war on Christmas “it’s the most unsuccessful war in history.”
This year, it seems the battle began at Starbucks and shopping malls, which seems appropriate given the commercial nature of the holiday. In lieu of Christmas cups that display snowflakes and evergreen branches, this year Starbucks opted for plain red cups, which has the conservatives over at Breitbart.com, like Raheem Kassam, in quite a tizzy. He says it’s part of the “Christian culture cleansing of the west.” And then there is the issue of mall Santa displays in 7 malls owned by the Simon Property Group, which opted out of backgrounds that include Christmas Trees and reindeer, and opted for a North Pole like “modern-artsy Glacier” instead. Apparently, some people decided to boycott the mall.
But, as much as it pains me to say this, the conservatives might have a point here—it’s just not the point they are trying to make.
Now, don’t get me wrong. There is nothing inappropriate about attempts to be more inclusive during the holiday season. You shouldn't wish someone a happy Father's Day unless you know they are a father. You shouldn't console someone upon the death of a family member with "they’re with Jesus now" unless you know they are a Christian. And this is all Starbucks and the Simon Property Group are trying to do. Not all of their customers are Christian, so they don't want to assume that they are; it would be inappropriate to surprise a Jews with a mocha latte that was covered with Christian symbols — like a baby Jesus.
But here's the thing: all the symbols that have been eliminated in these cases — snowflakes, candy canes, evergreens, Christmas trees, reindeer — are not Christian symbols. They have no religious significance whatsoever. And so, even if you don't celebrate Christmas, there is no reason to be offended by them.
“But isn't Christmas a Christian holiday?” I can hear someone objecting. “And so aren’t these symbols religious by association? I mean, after all, ‘Christmas’ is right there in the name of ‘Christmas tree.’ So shouldn't a non-Christian be offended when they are bombarded by Christmas symbols?”
No! Why? Because (brace yourself, here it comes) Christmas isn't a Christian holiday. So Christmas trees have nothing more to do with the baby Jesus than the Easter Bunny has to do with the death and resurrection of Christ.
“But how can it not be a Christian holiday? ‘Christ’ is right there in the name!”
It sure is. And "sun” is right there in the name “Sunday”—the day that most Christians attend worship services. In fact, Sunday is actually named after the sun god. Monday is named after the moon, Saturday after the god Saturn, and Sunday is the day that sun worshipers traditionally revered their deity. In fact, the early Christians changed their day of worship (from the Jewish Sabbath) to compete with (and accommodate) sun worshipers. Does that mean that people attending worship services today on Sunday are actually worshiping the sun? Of course not. We determine what something is about by looking at how it is practiced.
But look at how Christmas is practiced. All the most popular songs, television shows, and movies about Christmas are all secular — A White Christmas, A Christmas Carol, A Christmas Story, Jingle Bells, Miracle on 34th Street. People spend the vast majority of their efforts buying gifts and preparing meals. It’s undeniable that most people look forward to Christmas morning, not midnight mass.
And this is how the holidays have been celebrated throughout all of history. As I point out in Chapter 1 of The Myths That Stole Christmas, December celebrations date back about 2000 years before Jesus would have been born; the Roman Saturnalia is where we get many of our holiday traditions—like feasting, drinking, illicit sexual couplings (wild office parties), and social inversion (giving to the poor). The church tried to "tack" Jesus on to the already existing celebrations and traditions in the 300s, by declaring Jesus’ birth to have happened on December 25 (it decidedly did not). But even though the name "Christmas" finally caught on in the 11th Century, the holiday remained so raucous and secular throughout the Middle Ages that the Puritans banned all celebrations of it in the 1600s and 1700s. And when Christmas made its comeback in the 1800s, it was revived by secular and commercial forces as a secular and commercial holiday. Of course, just like in the 300s, Christians again tried to Christianize it with historically inaccurate mottos like “Jesus is the reason for the season,” but one trip into a shopping mall will show you how successful they were.
Now I'm not saying that all Christmas symbols are non-religious. Nativity scenes are clearly religious; and a lone nativity scene on a courthouse lawn is something to get upset about. That is a government institution clearly endorsing a religious symbol — a particularly religious way to celebrate Christmas. But putting up a Christmas tree is not a religious way to celebrate Christmas, and thus non-Christians should find no offense in their display, even if they are called a "Christmas tree." The same goes for reindeer and snowflakes.
So yes, it makes sense to get a little upset about the fact that Starbucks has taken snowflakes and candy canes off their cups, and that a few malls have taken Christmas trees out of their Christmas displays, but it's not because such things are indicative of a "Christian culture cleansing." It's because it's allowing conservative Christians to hijack something that has never belonged to them: secular holiday symbols and (in fact) the entire season itself. By embracing the idea that Christmas trees are offensive to non-Christians, you are suggesting that a Christmas tree is a Christian symbol – and it's not. Embracing the idea that all Christmas symbols are offensive to non-Christians is to suggest that Christmas itself is Christian — that it's a "Christians only" holiday. It decidedly is not. After all, a full 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas, but only about 71% are Christian.
So please, regardless of what side of the culture war you find yourself on, when it comes to the war on Christmas, save your indignation for something that matters.
David Kyle Johnson is the author of The Myths That Stole Christmas (available November 20, 2015).
Copyright, David Kyle Johnson
