In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it "Christmas" and went to church; the Jews called it "Hanukka" and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say "Merry Christmas!" or "Happy Hanukka!" or (to the atheists) "Look out for the wall!"

These days, people say "Season's Greetings," which, when you think about it, means nothing. It's like walking up to somebody and saying "Appropriate Remark" in a loud, cheerful voice. But "Season's Greetings" is safer, because it does not refer to any actual religion. Some day, I imagine, even "Season's Greetings" will be considered too religious, and we'll celebrate the Holiday Season by saying "Have a nice day."

Appropriate Remark, everyone, and to all a good night.

Speaking as an agnostic, what offends me about the holiday season is its commercial nature, but that battle was lost before I was born.

The simple formula? Give them what they want and keep their business. Don't give them what they want, and maybe lose their business. It's just that simple. Nobody that I know of is talking about suing retailers for not wishing customers a Merry Christmas, or passing a law mandating they do so. Yeah, some of these people might be knuckle-draggers, but even they are not that damned stupid.

Cartoon here:
http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2009/11/19/mallard-fillmore-protested-at-newsday/

No doubt Newsday had no fear of being sued (at least under a viable theory). They did want to avoid the drama. Same thing with using "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."

Newsday apologized to avoid more drama.

It takes a deeply developed sense of entitlement to get offended at the idea that the store is unwilling to risk offending someone else in order to make your day as good as it can possibly be.

I loved this post, Ken.

It's not lawsuits they fear. It's drama. Even stupid drama is a distraction. Even drama that doesn't directly affect the bottom line like a boycott would, is bad for business. It distracts employees. It distracts customers from purchasing things that they don't need and probably can't afford, in order to show their love to people – since love cannot exist absent concrete expressions like toys and sweater vests. The corporate directive is: Must avoid drama.

PC freaks are nothing if not dramatic. Next time you're at the 3rd Street Promenade, stop in at Houston's. No, Houston's wasn't going to be sued for calling a salad, "Evil Jungle Salad." They were going to deal with a bunch of drama. Thus, they dropped the name.

The Merry Christmas lunatics want to get their way by causing drama. Yes, you are right to mock them. They are ridiculous and probably incredibly miserable people who lack any meaningful relationship with God. Care about Christmas? Go volunteer at an animal shelter; feed the homeless; stop spending money on material possessions and instead write a check to organizations that feed the poor.

LMAO at the nonsense! A bunch of (self-professed) Christians are upset that commercial enterprises won't validate them. Why are they even buying material objects that they don't need when people are hungry, and children are being sold into sex slavery? I'm a pagan, but willing to bet I'll write more checks to charity than the Christians (in name only) who are butt hurt over a corporation's lack of interest in their needs.

Faux controversies like this are a reminder that modern Christians are indeed a joke, and have no comprehension of Christianity. "Dear Jesus, make the corporations be nice to me so I can spend money on material objects. Amen."

Anyhow, saying, “Happy Holidays” is NOT designed to be inclusive or tolerant. It’s designed to prevent Christians (whatever that term means these days) from wishing people Merry Christmas. “Happy Holidays” exists because a minority of people will throw a temper tantrum if stores don’t comply. It’s therefore unsurprising that some out of the four out of five who are being marginalized might throw a fit.

This is like people who think that any mention, hint, or reference to a monkey is RACIST, or that a cigar is NEVER just a cigar. Look, just because some asshole somewhere has used that phrase intending to be intolerant does automatically make EVERY use of it intolerant and anti-religion. But then again, I don't believe in this meta-guilt thing, where I personally am responsible for everyone's intentions everywhere.

Isn't it exhausting for these people to continually borrow trouble? I try to go through my day with as little conflict as possible (I know, I know, I'm in the wrong profession), so I cannot understand why someone would live with the attitude of "if it's even remotely possible to take offense, I WILL."

Of course, those people (like the guy who was angered and felt oppressed by "you too") are likely complainers and serial offendees in EVERY area of life, not just religion/culture/Christmas. In fact, there's a word for those kinds of people that starts with "ass" and ends with "hat". Although I am a bit tempted to act like this just once to see the reaction I get: "Excuse me, your clerk only said 'God bless you' to me. He did NOT say 'God bless and KEEP you.' What kind of oppressive establishment are you running here?"