Season greetings and PC

[Phillip Hone]

Why do so many people think that unless you recognize Christianity above other religions, you must somehow be excluding Christians?

Also, I'm confused by the opening post. Why is "Happy Holidays" an attack on Christianity, but not an attack on the other religions that are being "ignored"?

[Darth Wong]

Why do so many people think that unless you recognize Christianity above other religions, you must somehow be excluding Christians?

As I've said elsewhere, take Bill O'Reilly's rhetoric and replace "Christians" with "Christian supremacy" and it makes sense. "Happy Holidays" is an attack upon the unquestioned supremacy of Christianity over all other faiths, by treating Christians as just one of many religions, rather than the ONLY religion. It is not an attack on Christianity itself.

Also, I'm confused by the opening post. Why is "Happy Holidays" an attack on Christianity, but not an attack on the other religions that are being "ignored"?

See above.

[Phillip Hone]

True. Though I think that for some people it's just "if you're not attacking Christianity, then why are you only removing Christian overtones?"

Apparently, the answer to that question is less obvious to most people than you would think.

[Gunface]

The fact that Christianity has a hold on winter holidays doesn't mean it deserves to keep them. Those Christian overtones were the ones present. I'm sure if people said "Happy Hanukkah" every winter, Christians would be pissed off too.

[Stark]

I honestly never thought I see a thread here on SDN about nonspecific language being discriminatory. It's just such an obviously stupid fucking thing to say.

[Darth Wong]

I honestly never thought I see a thread here on SDN about nonspecific language being discriminatory. It's just such an obviously stupid fucking thing to say.

Painrack is not our smartest member. If memory serves, this is the same guy who once made it his personal policy to ask a different girl out every single day, and then wondered after a few months why he was starting to get a bad rap on campus.

[Magus]

Let me explain how your logic (and the logic of all the knee-jerk anti-PC crowd works);

Step 1: Declare that a particular expression is PC.
Step 2: Assume that anything which is PC must automatically be bad.
Step 3: Declare that the expression must be bad.

Notice step 2: in order to make this logic work, you must assume that 100% of "PC" phrases are bad. That's an idiotic assumption, particularly since there is not even a real definition of what "PC" is.

I view political correctness as an annoying expectation that robs people of common sense. When it is first established, a politically correct way to handle a situation is usually a guideline for defaulting one's words and actions to not be unnecessarily offensive. Usually, however, it assumes people learn enough common sense to understand when it is permissible, or even appropriate, to act in a non-PC way. It doesn't set itself up to be law.

The issue comes, however, when idiots who never learned common sense decide that the "PC way" is the only permissible way to act. Then, anyone who dares to use an alternate phrasing becomes intolerant, offensive, or fundamentalist. To tie this in, I'm sure there are people out there who believe that saying "Merry Christmas" automatically makes you a religious bigot, or at least a fundamentalist conservative. This irrational viewpoint is not a particularly good one either; "Merry Christmas" is a well-wishing season's greeting, not an expression of dogma.

I believe the OP's original question was "Has saying 'season's greetings' or 'happy holidays' become so politically correct that saying 'merry Christmas' is now demonized?" And to answer that question: I believe no - it's just that the idiots who think "Merry Christmas" is a religious attack and sue somebody are the ones who get the media coverage. I'm would hope that most people (including non-Christians) would respond with a similar cheerful well-wishing back, not claw out your throat for "religious intolerance."

[Magus]

I believe the OP's original question was "Has saying 'season's greetings' or 'happy holidays' become so politically correct that saying 'merry Christmas' is now demonized?"

Actually, upon reading the OP again, I've found that that's not what he's asking at all, but I like my question a whole lot better. Any thoughts my tangential question?

[Darth Wong]

The issue comes, however, when idiots who never learned common sense decide that the "PC way" is the only permissible way to act. Then, anyone who dares to use an alternate phrasing becomes intolerant, offensive, or fundamentalist. To tie this in, I'm sure there are people out there who believe that saying "Merry Christmas" automatically makes you a religious bigot, or at least a fundamentalist conservative. This irrational viewpoint is not a particularly good one either; "Merry Christmas" is a well-wishing season's greeting, not an expression of dogma.

Name these people.

I believe the OP's original question was "Has saying 'season's greetings' or 'happy holidays' become so politically correct that saying 'merry Christmas' is now demonized?" And to answer that question: I believe no - it's just that the idiots who think "Merry Christmas" is a religious attack and sue somebody are the ones who get the media coverage.

Show me the news articles describing these people who go apeshit and sue others just for saying "Merry Christmas". The only place where one would expect to impose a "no religious iconography" rule is the government, because there is a specific rule about not including religion in government. In any other case, I do believe that this "intolerance of Christmas" is purely imaginary: a strawman concocted by Bill O'Reilly and his legions of idiot followers.

I'm would hope that most people (including non-Christians) would respond with a similar cheerful well-wishing back, not claw out your throat for "religious intolerance."

I would hope that most people would not take the lying piece of shit Bill O'Reilly or his idiot followers at their word that such intolerance of the word "Christmas" actually exists.

[Magus]

Name these people.

I don't have names - but I can cite some examples:

Lawsuit: School bans Christmas colors, Christian-themed gifts
Dec 16, 2004
By Michael Foust
Baptist Press

Updated Dec. 17, 2004

PLANO, Texas. (BP)--Two pro-family groups filed a federal lawsuit against a Texas public school district Dec. 15, alleging that it banned elementary students from exchanging Christian-themed candy cane pens, prohibited students from writing "Merry Christmas" on greeting cards sent to soldiers and even prevented the use of traditional Christmas colors at a school party.

The Alliance Defense Fund and the Liberty Legal Institute filed the lawsuit in federal court against the Plano Independent School District, arguing that district's policy is unconstitutional and violates the students' religious freedoms. The Department of Justice announced Dec. 16 that it is investigating the district's policy.

The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order against the policy, thus allowing elementary students to hand out Christian-themed gifts at the annual holiday party Dec. 17. Last year at the same party, Jonathan Morgan, a third-grader, was prohibited from distributing candy cane pens -- pens shaped like a candy cane -- that included a message about Christ, the lawsuit alleges.

That same student, now in the fourth grade, wants to be able to hand out the candy cane pens at the upcoming party.

A hearing concerning the temporary restraining order request was scheduled to take place Dec. 16.

"We're trying to make sure that what happened last year does not happen again," Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for the Liberty Legal Institute, told Baptist Press. "... [Last year] they insisted it was school policy. Jonathan and his dad got to the door of the schoolroom, looked in and everybody had brought their goody bags. And the principal stopped Jonathan at the door and said, 'You can't bring your goody bags in.'"

School officials were quoted in media reports as saying the policy has changed and that religious-themed gifts will be allowed this year.

"This appears to be an effort by 'trial lawyers' to feed at the trough of the taxpayers' pockets, as opposed to truly addressing concerns through a nonlitigious manner," according to a statement by the school district's attorneys reported by The Dallas Morning News.

But Shackelford said he has not been notified of any policy change.

"They're telling the media now that they're changing their approach, but they haven't bothered to tell the parents, the kids or us," Shackelford said. "And their policy is exactly the same -- it hasn't been changed."

Department of Justice official Jeremiah Glassman sent a letter to Shackelford Dec. 16, requesting a copy of the lawsuit.

"The Department is authorized to intervene in suits against public school districts alleging a denial of equal protection of the laws on the basis of religion," Glassman wrote. "... We stress that the Department has not made any determination about the merits of the allegations but is simply conducting a preliminary inquiry into the matter."

Shackelford said he tried but failed to talk the school system into changing its policy prior to the party last year. After the third-grader was prohibited from handing out the candy cane pens, Shackelford began hearing about other complaints.

"We started preparing the lawsuit, and calls started coming in from other people who saw the press and said, 'You won't believe what they did to my son or my daughter,'" Shackelford said.

Among the complaints:

-- A young girl was prohibited at a birthday party from passing out pencils that included the name "Jesus."

-- Students were not allowed to write "Merry Christmas" on greeting cards to U.S. soldiers because the phrase might "offend someone."

-- Traditional Christmas colors -- such as green and red -- were banned from this year's holiday party. The party, according to Shackelford, is called a "winter party."

"They asked [parents] to bring white napkins, white paper plates and white icing," he said. "… Then they said, 'All other items shouldn't be brought because it would violate the school policy against distribution of things without school approval."

Gary McCaleb, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, called the school district policy "offensive."

“The policy is a perfect example of politically correct extremism,” McCaleb said. "... It is offensive to the 96 percent of Americans who celebrate Christmas. If the district truly wants to avoid offending someone, then they will change their incredibly restrictive and unconstitutional policy.”

The lawsuit is Jonathan Morgan, et al. v. the Plano Independent School District, et al.
--30--

Or, alternatively:

Christmas Wars Intensify: Christians Asked to "Retake the Public Square for Christmas"

ANN ARBOR, MI, November 15, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com)
::snip::
More than a dozen files have been opened for possible litigation and more are expected. Moreover, several requests to erect Nativity displays are pending before local governments in several states.

Later this month, the United Sates Supreme Court will decide whether to grant review of a Thomas More Law Center case, Andrea Skoros v. City of New York. In that case, a sharply divided panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of New York City schools to discriminate against Christian symbols while specifically allowing Jewish and Islamic symbols. New York City school policy allows the display of the menorah during the Jewish holiday of Chanukah, and the Islamic star and crescent during the Muslim commemoration of Ramadan, but specifically excludes Nativity displays during Christmas - a nationally recognized legal holiday by both the Executive branch and Legislative branch, as well as a legal holiday for the State of New York.

In another Law Center case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court decision that had dismissed a complaint filed by the Law Center challenging a New Jersey school district's total ban on Christmas music, including simple instrumentals. The Law Center's complaint alleged that the school district's ban on religious music conveys an impermissible government-sponsored message of hostility toward religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. The Third Circuit agreed that the Law Center's complaint stated a constitutional claim and ordered that the case continue, reversing the lower court.

As part of its Christmas Campaign, the Law Center has asked its supporters to petition their local governments in writing for permission to erect nativity displays. Law Center staff attorneys are standing by to assist in the petition, and if legally appropriate, to file a federal lawsuit should they be denied. Moreover, the Law Center has asked its several hundred affiliated attorneys across the nation to assist in this year's Christmas Campaign.
::snip::

I believe the OP's original question was "Has saying 'season's greetings' or 'happy holidays' become so politically correct that saying 'merry Christmas' is now demonized?" And to answer that question: I believe no - it's just that the idiots who think "Merry Christmas" is a religious attack and sue somebody are the ones who get the media coverage.

Show me the news articles describing these people who go apeshit and sue others just for saying "Merry Christmas". The only place where one would expect to impose a "no religious iconography" rule is the government, because there is a specific rule about not including religion in government. In any other case, I do believe that this "intolerance of Christmas" is purely imaginary: a strawman concocted by Bill O'Reilly and his legions of idiot followers.

Please forgive my hyperbole. I was referring more to the types of people cited above, who think that sending soldiers "Merry Christmas" cards is somehow promoting Christianity.

I'm would hope that most people (including non-Christians) would respond with a similar cheerful well-wishing back, not claw out your throat for "religious intolerance."

I would hope that most people would not take the lying piece of shit Bill O'Reilly or his idiot followers at their word that such intolerance of the word "Christmas" actually exists.

Is it unbelievable that the people mentioned in the above articles who believe that "Merry Christmas" is pro-Christian propaganda would not appreciate the phrase?

[brianeyci]

Painrack is not our smartest member. If memory serves, this is the same guy who once made it his personal policy to ask a different girl out every single day, and then wondered after a few months why he was starting to get a bad rap on campus.

Ah, but the important question is thus : did he get any ass? .

I can imagine Painrack never hearing of good old Bill and the war on Christmas, and exclusion can be a form of persecution. But even if you're dumb enough to think the commercialization of Christmas is harming Christians, there is the small fact that Christians outnumber atheists by orders of magnitude and any claims of persecution are absurd... it's the other way around. And of course, even if it wasn't and atheists were 99.9999% of the population and Happy Holidays smothering Merry Christmas everywhere, if you accept that Christmas must be religious, then attacking religion especially in schools and so on is excellent because religion is a negative factor in society and you must maintain separation of church and state. So it's very difficult to imagine someone believing that Happy Holidays is somehow persecution--unless the person is a Christian or religious.

[Darth Wong]

Name these people.

I don't have names - but I can cite some examples:
<snip>

That's an example of a lawsuit launched by Christians, not a lawsuit launched against Christians, you idiot.

Christmas Wars Intensify: Christians Asked to "Retake the Public Square for Christmas"

<snip>

Again, that is legal action taken by Christians, not against them. Do you even know how to read?

Please forgive my hyperbole. I was referring more to the types of people cited above, who think that sending soldiers "Merry Christmas" cards is somehow promoting Christianity.

The types of people cited above are the types of people who think that not erecting a nativity scene on government land is somehow oppression of Christianity. As if they can't just do that on their own land; oh no, they have to do it on government property.

Is it unbelievable that the people mentioned in the above articles who believe that "Merry Christmas" is pro-Christian propaganda would not appreciate the phrase?

Are you honestly so fucking retarded that you don't realize you cited two articles of Christians attacking others for not letting them use government institutions for that purpose, rather than any article where a poor Christian was attacked by his own religiosity?

[wolveraptor]

Honestly, what kind of loser has enough time on his/her hands to launch a lawsuit over not being able to have green and red at a party? Hell, green and red aren't even specifically Christian colors. Someone needs to chill the fuck out.

[Magus]

That's an example of a lawsuit launched by Christians, not a lawsuit launched against Christians, you idiot.

Who are they suing except people who :

believe that saying "Merry Christmas" automatically makes you a religious bigot, or at least a fundamentalist conservative?

The actions of the people being sued goes beyond "separation of church and state" into "everything Christmas is religious," despite the secularization of the holiday. I don't think the lawsuits are the best way to resolve these issues; I just chose to cite cases where there were idiots on both sides of the issue: School officials freaking out over the implications of "Christmas," and parents freaking out over the implications of a lack thereof. You chose to ignore the former and attack me over the latter's existence.

Again, that is legal action taken by Christians, not against them. Do you even know how to read?

Yes.

The types of people cited above are the types of people who think that not erecting a nativity scene on government land is somehow oppression of Christianity. As if they can't just do that on their own land; oh no, they have to do it on government property.

There is also another type of people cited above who think that Christmas itself is religious by necessity, when in fact it's not.

[Darth Wong]

That's an example of a lawsuit launched by Christians, not a lawsuit launched against Christians, you idiot.

Who are they suing except people who :

believe that saying "Merry Christmas" automatically makes you a religious bigot, or at least a fundamentalist conservative?

I see you are indeed a fucking moron. When a school says "let's not do anything overtly Christian in the school", they are not saying that anyone who says "Merry Christmas" is automatically a bigot or a fundie. That is a connection that YOU are making with no logic whatsoever.

They are only saying that we should try to be inclusive of non-Christians, and that in fact, in taxpayer-funded government institutions, we have an obligation to do so.

The actions of the people being sued goes beyond "separation of church and state" into "everything Christmas is religious," despite the secularization of the holiday.

Oh bullshit. Schools often go out of their way to try and make everyone feel welcome. At my son's school, they banned all peanut products from every single child's lunches and snacks even though there's only something like 1 or 2 kids in the whole school who have peanut allergies. Did they do this because they think that anyone who brings peanuts into school is a raging asshole who wants to murder his classmates? No, they did it because they're trying to go out of their way to make those handful of parents and kids feel safer. Similarly, this one particular school probably went out of its way to make certain Muslims or Jews feel more welcome, and they got sued for their trouble by a bunch of Christian assholes who can't see a nice gesture for what it is.

I don't think the lawsuits are the best way to resolve these issues; I just chose to cite cases where there were idiots on both sides of the issue: School officials freaking out over the implications of "Christmas," and parents freaking out over the implications of a lack thereof. You chose to ignore the former and attack me over the latter's existence.

Show me evidence that the school was "freaking out" or accusing anyone who said "Merry Christmas" of being a bigot.

Again, that is legal action taken by Christians, not against them. Do you even know how to read?

Yes.

No you don't.

The types of people cited above are the types of people who think that not erecting a nativity scene on government land is somehow oppression of Christianity. As if they can't just do that on their own land; oh no, they have to do it on government property.

There is also another type of people cited above who think that Christmas itself is religious by necessity, when in fact it's not.

Totally irrelevant to the fact that no one is harmed, no one's life is disrupted, no one is really seriously put out in any way, shape, or form by a school official saying "let's not do anything overtly Christian in this school". The lawsuit, on the other hand, costs the public money, is highly disruptive to everyone involved, and definitely indicates a virulent attitude. The fact that you equate the two actions only indicates that you have no real concept of social ethics other than to mindlessly parrot what Bill O'Reilly and his idiot followers say.

[Magus]

I see you are indeed a fucking moron. When a school says "let's not do anything overtly Christian in the school", they are not saying that anyone who says "Merry Christmas" is automatically a bigot or a fundie. That is a connection that YOU are making with no logic whatsoever.

They are only saying that we should try to be inclusive of non-Christians, and that in fact, in taxpayer-funded government institutions, we have an obligation to do so.

Bullshit. That's the most idiotic thing I've heard all day. "Let's be inclusive by excluding people." What the fuck? Inclusiveness does not mean you deny Christians the same opportunity that other groups get to inclusively add their heritage to the mix. That's favoring the minority, rather than allowing each group either equal or proportional representation - which would be real inclusiveness. In fact, a holiday like Chanukah is innately more religious, because there has been no mass secularization of the event - it's almost exclusively Jewish. Meanwhile, Christmas trees, presents, candy canes, wreaths, red and green, mistletoe, and a host of other Christmas symbols have meaning completely independent of Christianity. How the hell is allowing the Islamic star-and-crescent or the Jewish menorah but excluding a cross or a Nativity scene supposed to be inclusive? It's not - it's just the same old crap they tried to use to sell affirmative action.

You are correct about one thing - there is no evidence that school officials see all people who bring in Christmas decorations as trying to foist a religion off on other people. Yet, I was being charitable and assumed they at least had some plausible reason to ban such things. I chose to assume they did something that made logical sense, even if it was based on a flawed principle. If you like, I can assume they're just idiots.

Oh bullshit. Schools often go out of their way to try and make everyone feel welcome. At my son's school, they banned all peanut products from every single child's lunches and snacks even though there's only something like 1 or 2 kids in the whole school who have peanut allergies. Did they do this because they think that anyone who brings peanuts into school is a raging asshole who wants to murder his classmates? No, they did it because they're trying to go out of their way to make those handful of parents and kids feel safer. Similarly, this one particular school probably went out of its way to make certain Muslims or Jews feel more welcome, and they got sued for their trouble by a bunch of Christian assholes who can't see a nice gesture for what it is.

I've got no problem making Muslims or Jews feel welcome in a school. Kudos to them. Include those menorahs and star-and-crescents. I do have a problem with reversing the situation so that the Christians in the school are placed in a situation where their heritage is not welcome. Hell - not just Christians - What about atheists who celebrate Christmas? They don't get to feel that their holiday traditions are welcome as well?

...no one is harmed, no one's life is disrupted, no one is really seriously put out in any way, shape, or form by a school official saying "let's not do anything overtly Christian in this school".

Despite the fact that Christmas need not be "overtly Christian," everything else you say here is very true. None of this is any different than allowing Christmas decorations at the exclusion or neglect of Jewish or Islamic custom. Yet the Jews and Muslims are just as quick to call foul whenever this occurs.

The lawsuit, on the other hand, costs the public money, is highly disruptive to everyone involved, and definitely indicates a virulent attitude.

The fact that you equate the two actions only indicates that you have no real concept of social ethics other than to mindlessly parrot what Bill O'Reilly and his idiot followers say.

This would be a great little rebuttal. Now if only I:

a) Had ever watched or listened to what Bill O'Reilly (or his lackeys) said

b) Had ever in my posts equated the lawsuits and the actions that spurred them. The closest I came to even mentioning the two together was to say:

...there were idiots on both sides of the issue:...

Don't try to set me up as a defender of these inane lawsuits because that is not my position, nor did I say as much.

[Dalton]

Ah, Billo's "culture warrior" nonsense has started again. Nothing like ruining the spirit of the season by demanding exclusivity for your religion.

[Bronx]

"Season's Greetings" won't offend anyone unless they think the USA was founded a Christian nation.

[Darth Servo]

"Season's Greetings" won't offend anyone unless they think the USA was founded a Christian nation.

In other words, the majority of the US population.

[Bronx]

In other words, the majority of the US population.

Yes, unfortunately.

[Darth Wong]

Bullshit. That's the most idiotic thing I've heard all day. "Let's be inclusive by excluding people." What the fuck?

That, in a nutshell, is the crux of your stupidity. Using the most inclusive possible term "holiday" is somehow viewed by you as EXCLUDING Christians even though Christmas is included in the term "holiday" by any conceivable definition of the term.

You are literally saying that white is black, 0 is 1, true is false, etc. You CANNOT state that anyone is being excluded by the use of the term "holiday" because that is simply not true. Do you even know what "exclude" means? Telling people not to use an exclusive term is not "excluding" anyone except by the most perverse possible definition. It's like saying that tolerance policies are intolerant of intolerance.

Don't try to set me up as a defender of these inane lawsuits because that is not my position, nor did I say as much.

If you admit that the Christians in these cases are being the obnoxious ones, much more so than the school, then you admit that you FAILED to meet my request that you back up your bullshit about intolerant disruptive "fundie PC" people. So once more, back up your bullshit.

[brianeyci]

You know I am going to sound like somewhat of a dick, but why do Christians not come out and call this bullshit. I am not just talking about this thread, I'm talking about War on Christmas in general. Although it would be very nice to hear someone in this thread say, "I am a Christian and I do not feel persecuted by Bill O'Reilly's retarded War on Christmas. And I like Happy Holidays and Seasons Greetings, I think Painrack was a douche, blah blah" Even though it doesn't matter whether a Christian says it or Mike says it, it'd be nice to hear.

Damn, what's the matter Christians, don't want to apply the same standards to yourselves as you apply to Muslims not calling out their terrorist brethren? Come on man.

[Magus]

Using the most inclusive possible term "holiday" is somehow viewed by you as EXCLUDING Christians even though Christmas is included in the term "holiday" by any conceivable definition of the term.

Not at all. "Happy Holidays" indeed includes Christmas. I have no problem with a school using "Happy Holidays" to be inclusive. I raised a related observation that saying "Merry Christmas" is not exclusive - and isn't against the school's mission. It is Christmas, whether you observe it or not. Saying "Merry Christmas" is simply wishing someone well, not making a damn religious statement. Banning students from saying it as if it were an exclusive statement is unnecessary and pointless.

My real complaint comes in where people allow other holiday-specific material and disallow Christmas material. There's no logic to that.

You CANNOT state that anyone is being excluded by the use of the term "holiday" because that is simply not true.

It's a good thing I never did, then.

Telling people not to use an exclusive term is not "excluding" anyone except by the most perverse possible definition.

Once again, "Merry Christmas" is not a term exclusive to Christians. Atheists celebrate Christmas. Jews celebrate Christmas. I don't know personally of Muslims who celebrate Christmas, but I'm sure there are a few.

At any rate, the point I have been making over the last few posts is that schools (or anybody else) who exclude Christmas symbolism and include symbolism from Jewish or Islamic culture in an attempt to be "fair" are failing quite miserably.

If you admit that the Christians in these cases are being the obnoxious ones, much more so than the school, then you admit that you FAILED to meet my request that you back up your bullshit about intolerant disruptive "fundie PC" people.

So it's apparently impossible for both sides of an issue to be obnoxious at once? Is that more than your brain can handle?

[SirNitram]

Not at all. "Happy Holidays" indeed includes Christmas. I have no problem with a school using "Happy Holidays" to be inclusive. I raised a related observation that saying "Merry Christmas" is not exclusive - and isn't against the school's mission.

You, sir, are a flaming, giant, retard.

1) Merry Christmas is explicitly exclusive: It excludes everyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas, you fucking imbecile.

2) It is indeed against the school's mission to exclude against other religions by using something which explicitly endorses just one holiday. Why don't you go read the fucking Establishment Clause?

[Magus]

1) Merry Christmas is explicitly exclusive: It excludes everyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas, you fucking imbecile.

2) It is indeed against the school's mission to exclude against other religions by using something which explicitly endorses just one holiday. Why don't you go read the fucking Establishment Clause?

1) What about people who don't celebrate any holidays? Aren't we excluding them? Maybe we should be saying "Happy Winter Break."

2) There's a difference between using something in the school's publications and forbidding students from bringing in Christmas stuff during a time set aside for sharing one's holiday heritage.