Is There a War on Christmas?

“We’re going to say Merry Christmas again.”

Trump’s 2016 declaration was a loaded statement. It begged the question, “Wait, have Americans stopped saying Merry Christmas?” In most secular and progressive circles, the notion of a “War on Christmas” is ridiculed as paranoia and fearmongering. But Trump went on to win in 2016, and then again in 2024. Was he on to something?

Certainly, there had been flashpoints throughout the decade.

Notably in 2015, the Freedom From Religion Foundation took common cause with the ACLU to remove live Nativity scenes from Concord Community Schools. And while the lawsuit had complex nuances, the optics of the “Freedom From Religion Foundation stops Nativity” does look a lot like “cancelling Christmas.”

The year prior, the Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop case went before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Commissioner Diann Rice commented that using religion to justify discrimination was one of “the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that (a person) could use.” Whether Masterpiece Cakeshop actually engaged in discrimination, like most topics in this space, tends to divide along party lines. What does not divide along party lines is the Supreme Court’s 7–2 conclusion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission that the Commission itself showed unconstitutional hostility toward religion.

Fast-forward into the COVID era and things intensified.

To be fair, COVID intensified almost everything, everywhere. But if you’re looking for evidence of a cultural conflict with Christianity, Nevada capping churches at 50 people (regardless of size) while allowing casinos, bars, and restaurants to operate at 50% capacity seems suspicious. New York, California, and Colorado adopted similar restrictions—with Colorado only backing off after threats of litigation.

But, similar to Masterpiece Cakeshop, this divides cleanly along party lines. Many Democrats look closely at the facts and argue these double standards were oversight, chaos, or emergency decision-making: not hostility. Many Republicans look at the same rules and see a pattern: the institutions that shape public life treat their faith as a problem to be contained. That disparate experience of the last decade is exactly what fuels the perceived “War on Christmas”—it’s a proxy for a larger conflict.

Escalating Culture Wars and “Proxy Battles”

In 2016, 2020, and 2024 Trump presented himself as a champion of Christian values. Whether or not his faith was genuine, he was drawing battle lines around that conflict. Whether conservative Christians wanted it or not, and many did not, he presented himself as their ally.

Fueling that perception, modern intersectional progressives often view society through intersections of identity and power. Intersectional critical theory frames social issues in terms of overlapping hierarchies that often simplify to “oppressors” and “oppressed.” These intersections shift depending on race, gender, sexuality, religion, ability, body size, and so on. Intersectional critical theory borrows heavily from Marxist categories, in that these power dynamics are assumed to be ever-present and structural. Privilege is not just about what individuals do; it’s about belonging to groups and systems that benefit from, or enact, injustice.

Even when they don’t frame Christianity as a historical antagonist (and they sometimes do), many progressives view Trump’s alliance with the church in this “intersectional” context. In this lens, wanted or not, the Church becomes an extension or symbol for conservative power structures: a threatening marriage of church and state. So to many Christians saying “Merry Christmas” is a call sign, signaling religious identity. And to some progressives, they agree, but view religious identity in a theocratic light.

If someone feels threatened or attacked, that perception of conflict creates conflict, even if the conflict wasn’t originally there. This is true for Christians reacting to COVID restrictions and censorious lawsuits, and it’s true for Progressives balking at a perceived alliance between church and state. Of course, even without these flashpoints, carving the world into intersecting identities and disparities can make ordinary life start to feel like a battlefield—or a card game where some cards “trump” others. So, not everywhere, not for everyone, and not all the time—but certainly in some places and with some people, “Christmas” has become a proxy battle for a culture war.

So, what if you live in one of those places? Or if your friends and family work with some of these people? Can you safely say, “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Easter”? For the sake of discussion, let’s narrow the scope to the workplace and not tangle with family disputes.

Start with Reality: Most Holiday Greetings Aren’t Harmful

Let us acknowledge that the likelihood that someone is genuinely harmed by holiday well-wishes—even in a culturally divisive area—remains relatively low. Wishing someone well does not usually qualify as harmful behavior. Nor would a well-wish typically be considered offensive, even if it’s outside your religious and cultural context. When living in a Muslim culture, we routinely wished people a blessed Idul Fitri (the celebration ending Ramadan). Because why would we not want people to be blessed, not matter who they are or what they believed? But what if someone believes the behavior to be harmful?

The Legal Standard Is Higher Than “Someone Was Offended”

The first question is, “So what?” In HR language, the answer you’ll usually hear is, “It creates a hostile work environment for the offended person.” But hostile work environments aren’t defined by just anything that somebody found offensive that one time. There’s a legal standard here.

To create a hostile work environment, conduct must be both discriminatory and severe or pervasive. Unless it's delivered via catapult or staple gun, a one-off holiday well-wish is not likely to be discrimination in the first place, and sans-projectile not likely to be "severe." And if someone tells you they don’t appreciate Merry Christmas well-wishes for whatever reason, if you stop, it’s not going to be pervasive either.

The same goes for other forms of speech, like saying you’ll pray for someone. They can always respond that they don’t want to be prayed for, and while they might not have the right to be free of being prayed for, they probably have the right within the workplace to be free of being told that they are being prayed for.

A second complication is that religion in the workplace is itself a protected characteristic.

And being “allergic” to another person’s religion typically isn’t legally protected. So, if someone is offended by another person’s ordinary religious speech, there might be discrimination in the workplace, but the person who is offended by the greetings is at just as much risk of being discriminatory as the person delivering greetings.

But what about Ramadan? Or neo-pagan holidays like Ostara?

Here again, the law pushes toward consistency. When one religion can be discussed in the workplace, you can’t prevent discussion of another religion just because someone else feels bothered. If Muslims are free to talk about Ramadan, then Christians are generally free to talk about Christmas, and neo-pagans about their own holidays.

Could you forbid all discussion of religion?

That too is risky, because some people have sincerely held religious beliefs that they should be able to verbally identify as following their religion.

True, some strands of critical theory try to carve out special exceptions where historically marginalized groups have their speech actively encouraged and promoted, while speech from “dominant” groups is constrained. But the actual law does not support accomplishing equity of speech by suppressing free speech in general (a plan that is ironic at best). And lawsuits around this legal theory are currently problematic.

Employees enjoy broad freedoms.

Broadly speaking, this means employees are free to discuss their holidays and lifestyles with each other in a tasteful and polite manner without crossing into bullying or coercion. The mere fact that speech is religious does not make it a fair target for censure. For employers, however, things get more complicated.

But employers must watch more carefully.

First, employers are free to be religious and express their beliefs, but in a way that does not make employees feel that they are being coerced or pressured into going along. You can invite everyone in the workplace to your church’s rendering of The Messiah, but you shouldn’t put on pressure for people to go, take attendance, or base year-end bonuses on who showed up.

Employers also have an obligation to honor other people’s religious observances. First, this means being polite about it, just as for employees. Next, it means working through religious accommodations. This can mean being flexible during Ramadan, making sure people can leave early on Christmas Eve (don’t be like Scrooge!), or accommodating Yom Kippur.

Employers also have an obligation to create a good workplace environment. Passing comments about religious beliefs are fine. If someone wants to outline every single Messianic prophecy to their fellow workers, that should probably be done on their own time. For one thing, it could take up a lot of work time. And employees do not have to be subject to a barrage about someone else’s beliefs.

Religion, Politics, and Basic Decency at Work

While in some environments, the line between “religious identity” and “political identity” is increasingly blurred, there is no constitutional right to talk about politics in the workplace. There’s also no general constitutional right to be nasty to other people in the workplace.

Employees hope for employers who are fair and kind and proactive in response to complaints. If an employee believes there has been discrimination such as stifling of religious beliefs or being force-fed religious beliefs, Christian or otherwise, he or she should be able to have a candid discussion with HR about that.

As with so much employment law, the Golden Rule applies: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them.” (spoken by Jesus, Matthew 7:12)

Opinion Editorial by David Sidebotham