It's funny you should mention this cos I've come across some pretty similar happenings within local councils over here in the UK being reported in the papers. Many want to play down the whole "Christmas" element of, er, Christmas in order to avoid stepping on the toes of non-Christian groups in the community. They're not Christmas trees anymore, they're "winter" trees. They're not Christmas lights, they're "winter" or "celebrity" (???) lights.

I have always been strongly opposed to so-called political correctness, as all that it does is show up those who advocate it for what they really are: bigoted, racist, sectarian bastards. This sort of thing REALLY pisses me off.

Although it obviously won't keep me awake at night, renaming Christmas trees is plain silly. Regardless of the origins of the holidays, whether you pick the Pagan or the Christian basis for them, renaming is nonsense. Speaking as a "non-Christian", I can tell you that I don't quite understand how people can get offended by the names of holidays. Now if it were called "Stomp-the-Infidel-day" or something like that, I could see some people getting their knickers in a twist, although I'd still laugh at those taking serious offense. I'm strongly against forcing 'the holiday spirit' on anyone, but I can't fault calling Christmas simply what it is (or has come to be). Or Hanukah, or Independance Day or .. you name it. I'll always have a chuckle at the 'Easter bunny' and the 'Christmas tree', but by golly - that's their proper name.

I don't consider myself a Christian but I can't see how members of any faith could possibly go to such lengths to "accommodate" other religions without massively watering down their own. Can you imagine Passover being referred to as "Big Dinner Day"? Technically I'd be celebrating it every day and I'm not even Jewish. Or perhaps our very own St Patrick's Day becoming "Everybody Pretends To Be Irish Day" or worse, "Leprechaun Day"? (shudders)

To me, the whole thing stinks of a massive guilt trip on the part of those ultimately responsible for the social divisions we see in the world every day. To me, that is the sole definition of political correctness ie the language of fear. Not to mention that from personal experience it only seems to apply to white males. Yes I am white, yes I am male but that does NOT mean that I am personally responsible for the sexual/racial/ethnic discrimination that happens every day. Nor does my being Irish mean that I am a member of a paramilitary organization (but try telling that to customs officers or the police in mainland UK). Women can make derogatory remarks about men without any fallout, other religions can practice without anyone "taking offence", other cultures can be freely expressed without public outcry, so why the need to tip-toe around them? Granted, white so-called Christians have been resonsible for many atrocities in the past (and still are today), but the same goes for many other races and religions so why does the ordinary Joe Bloggs have to atone for the evils carried out by others?

No matter what you do or say, it will be objectionable to someone. Live with it. If they have any shred of human decency, they will do likewise.

I, on the other hand, simply hate everyone in equal measure

The idea is noble and perhaps the best way to keep the masses in check. However, to name attacks on it an 'obsession' is not entirely just (unless you're willing to call the desire to keep the symbols obsessive aswell). There is a remarkable amount of danger too in 'removing man's grasp on human rights', because it removes responsibility and perhaps a grasp of reality. Man does not have to answer to himself then, he answers to the unknowable, to the deity. In so doing, man fools himself, risks losing himself in fundamentalism and strays from important points of discussion. To the believer, there is no harm in that at all, because it is the only way to go - but that is exactly the point: some see things differently. From their point of view (in extremes, think of Nietzsche) it is not an attack but the only possible defense, necessary for human survival in the long run.

Furthermore, when it looks like the government is under the control of a higher, trustworthy order, this is all the more dangerous if this is not the case. If a body can simply point upwards for confirmation, it can in the meantime (either wittingly or unwittingly, the former being the most insidious) destroy lives, nations and ideas without truly being held responsible for it, and basing their actions off of something that is as powerful as it is reciprocally existant.

Speaking for myself, I am not offended by 'In God we trust' on coinage (which we have had in a similar form on our previous type of currency for a long time), but it was something that struck me as odd and even somewhat hypocritical, seeing how money is a perfect medium for observing how little trust people have. Anyway, regardless of my personal mildness in this matter, it is untrue that non-believers should be un-offendable. Their values and beliefs (because everybody has those) make them just as sensitive to attempts to harm their person or mankind as believers. I've noticed, on that account, that most people who believe in more concrete, exact matters find it hard to understand how people can believe in abstract ideas and vice versa - and most even harder to respect those ideas, and easier to offend their owners.
It is not the fact that there are references to gods in society that offends those people, it's the fact that people are grasping on to non-existant anchors, swearing by them, using them as grounds for decisions secular matters, etc. - and attacking them for not joining in.

That said, I think the ones respecting Islam while attacking Christianism are as foolish as those saying believing in Shiva is ridiculous while believing in another god. Uneven attacks of this kind are nuts, just like the 'I hate to be white' hype that held the Western world in check for a few decades of the last century. It is much a pendulum, so I don't expect ideas of that kind to last very long. As soon as something has been 'tolerated' long enough to make it part of accepted normality, then it is opened up to attack. If ever (which I would hate to see) Christianism would be reduced to a microscopic minority, it would automatically be on the 'toleration' list again. However much I am in favour of diversity at any given moment, I am sure that diversity through time is preferrable. :]