What does an ‘inclusive Christmas’ mean?

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.