The problem, for me, of course is resolving what are my obligatioins. I stumbled across this in a recent posting by ginmar in the threrad thread where there is for me the open ambiguity about 'which Xmas' and what exactly do we mean by 'defend'.
As those who know me understand. I am completely OPPOSED to the secular 'holiday' on the 25th of december mascarading as "christmas", as it is a completely secular holidy, and no amount of Make Up is going to turn that Pig into a Princess at the ball. In like manner I am offended by the so called "christians" who want to restore 'christmas' rather than "Christ Mass", since they are actually engaging in a 'kulturkampf' action based upon the american "civil religion" free standing from the flow of "christian history".
The later does as much damage to 'believers' as the secular co-optation by the 'free marketeers'.
All of which, as some understand, gets messier when we toss in the 'honor obligation' to 'defend', which in my culture is not merely the sort of rhetorical posturing popular amongst the Victims Of ChickenHawk Angst (VOCHA), but the technical implementation specfiic detains associated with that collection of professional obligations.
So would americans really like to sort out which part of the 1st Ammendment they find more offensive?
And yes, if we are going to get pressy about all of this, when I got married in the UK, given that My Mother was Anglo Catholic, the form was filled out indicating that I was COE, Church of England, as they were at the time accepting the 'catholic nature' of the 'anglican confessional'. So forgive me if I am modestly fluent in the issues related to 'stadt kirche' at levels of personal involvement that most americans have not taken the time to even become cognizant of, let alone conversant in.