People have probably already taken the religion out of religious
holidays like Christmas and Easter for generations, those who
celebrated the festivities of the season with decorations and parties
and gifts and merriment, but without church or a particular faith. We
understand ‘to each his own’ in America, and let folks pretty much
observe things as they see fit. Implicit in that mentality is…’so long
as no one is harmed’, though what ‘harm’ is imaginable in the
observation of universally beloved holidays, especially by people who
try to live a life of faith and charity?

Several years ago, certain individuals came forward formally
complaining of harm from merely having to be around Christmas
observations. Especially nativity scenes, which really offended them.
Now they’ve taken it to the extent of forbidding the use of red and
green decorations in many school ’seasonal’ celebrations, (by whatever
inventive name they take). Calls to mind inner-city schools that forbid
students to wear well-known gang colors so as not to incite violence.

This is beyond belief.

Which is sort of the point, in this news article about the White House Christmas display this year. 

The Obamas were planning a “non-religious Christmas” and
intended not to put the traditional White House créche scene on display.

White House Social Secretary Desirée Rogers reportedly told a
meeting of former secretaries that the Obamas did not intend to put the
manger scene on display - a suggestion that was greeted by an “audible
gasp” from her audience.  The White House confirmed that there had been
discussion regarding whether to make Christmas more “inclusive.”

Now what does that mean?

What some people don’t get, is that Christians believe when
it originally happened, it was the first inclusive event in the history
of the world.