Is the "war on Christmas" one worth fighting? Despite the dutiful culture warriors lining up to defend the religious trappings of the holiday, some Christian ethicists aren't so sure it's a wise battle to pick. [      ]

According to religious-freedom expert Charles Haynes, the conflict is superficial, but it gets at the heart of what it means to be an American in a society of ever-expanding religious diversity.

"I think that they are -- many of these examples -- are distractions from the real issues; I think they are red herrings. Or red and green herrings," he said, with a laugh. Haynes is a First Amendment scholar at the Washington-based Freedom Forum.

But the underlying issues aren't laughing matters, he noted.

"The examples about Wal-Mart not using 'Merry Christmas' in its ads, Lowe's putting up signs that say 'holiday trees' ... they're reacting to a kind of political correctness on the left, if you will, that has made us all more sensitive to our religious diversity," Haynes said. "But this religious correctness from the other side is equally ridiculous, you know -- somehow telling people by saying 'happy holidays' they're anti-Christian."

David Gushee, a Christian ethicist at Union University in Jackson, Tenn., said one's view of the conflict may very well depend on one's context. "The shift to more generic holiday greetings can be read either as a symbol of growing secularization in America or as an enhanced sensitivity to the real religious diversity of our nation. Both are probably true," he said, in an e-mail interview.

"As with many other church-state issues, here in the small-town South the culture is so overwhelmingly 'Christian' that it strikes us as odd indeed when 'Christ' is taken out of 'Christmas,'" Gushee continued. "It is easy to forget that the rest of the country is much more diverse."

Haynes said much of the uproar owes to conservative Christians' reaction -- perhaps an overreaction -- to a handful of ham-handed efforts by government officials attempting to avoid holiday-season violations of the First Amendment.

"For example, sometimes public schools do go too far in trying to be inclusive or sensitive to diversity, end up improperly excluding Christianity, and that's not right," Haynes said. "Now, that comes out of a long history of controversy over ... the Christian domination of schools. So it's understandable, but it's just not right." [      ]

But those public officials are misguided, said Brent Walker, executive director of the Washington-based Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

Walker noted that religious Christmas music, symbols and biblical texts all can be used in schools and other government settings, as long as they are non-devotional in nature and balanced with other aspects of the holiday season. For instance, he said, public-school holiday concerts "can and should include religious music along with the secular, as long as the sacred does not dominate."

But Walker said that, in the private realms of retail policies and everyday greetings, constitutional strictures are irrelevant.

"There's nothing wrong with calling it what it is: a Christmas tree. And it is perfectly appropriate to extend a specific holiday greeting such as my Jewish friends do when they wish me a 'Merry Christmas,' and I return a 'Happy Hanukkah,'" he said in a recent commentary on the subject.

"But often it's quite appropriate to wish another 'happy holidays' or 'season's greetings.' It's just a matter of good manners and common courtesy. If I am talking to a person whose religious affiliation I do not know, I will employ the more general greeting. And the same goes for merchants who have advertised goods to Americans of many religious traditions who may or may not celebrate Christmas."

Critics of the "war on Christmas" furor, including Walker, have suggested that Falwell, Liberty Counsel and others may be fanning the flames of controversy to aid year-end fundraising drives -- a charge they deny.

But Haynes and Gushee both offered deeper criticisms of the attempts to re-Christianize the trappings of the holiday season.

"Christians really need to exhibit a deeper concern for the way 'Christ' is used by 'Christmas' in order to stimulate a massive orgy of consumerism and thus stimulate the American economy," Gushee said. "But that is a more counter-cultural message than anyone seems willing to hear."

Haynes went further. "We're not talking about the religious Christmas here. That's one of the strangest things about this; we have people saying they are religious people ... defending the secularization of Christmas," he said.

"And they're not saying they want stores to really focus on Jesus this year, [they're] saying, 'No, we just want stores to continue to exploit the Christian faith and use the birth of Jesus to sell things .... One of the oddities of this whole debate is that here you have these folks defending the commercialization of Christmas.

"It's like defending the Easter Bunny -- that it's anti-Christian if you don't have the Easter Bunny," Haynes continued. "You'd think they'd be jumping up and down and saying, 'Great! You can have your Easter Bunny and your darn tree and let us keep Jesus!' But no!"