I love Frank Rich. This is the one guy whose opinion pieces always say what I've been thinking, but in a much more eloquent, convincing and funny way.

His latest, 2004: The Year of the 'Passion' goes into the whining of some Christians about how they are being persecuted--yet at the same time claiming to be a large majority of the country. Some of the choice passages:

In the latest and most bizarre twist on this theme, even Christmas is now said to be a target of the anti-Christian mob. "Are we going to abolish the word Christmas?" asked Newt Gingrich, warning that "it absolutely can happen here." Among those courageously leading the fight to save the holiday from its enemies is Bill O'Reilly, who has taken to calling the Anti-Defamation League "an extremist group" and put the threat this way: "Remember, more than 90 percent of American homes celebrate Christmas. But the small minority that is trying to impose its will on the majority is so vicious, so dishonest — and has to be dealt with." If more than 90 percent of American households celebrate Christmas, you have to wonder why the guy is whining. The only evidence of what Pat Buchanan has called Christmas-season "hate crimes against Christianity" consists of a few ridiculous and isolated incidents, like the banishment of a religious float from a parade in Denver and of religious songs from a high school band concert in New Jersey. (In scale, this is nothing compared with the refusal of the world's largest retailer, Wal- Mart, to stock George Carlin's new best seller, "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?," whose cover depicts its author at the Last Supper.)

What is this about? How can those in this country's overwhelming religious majority maintain that they are victims in a fiery battle with forces of darkness? It is certainly not about actual victimization. Christmas is as pervasive as it has ever been in America, where it wasn't even declared a federal holiday until after the Civil War. What's really going on here is yet another example of a post-Election-Day winner-takes-all power grab by the "moral values" brigade. As Mr. Gibson shrewdly contrived his own crucifixion all the way to the bank, trumping up nonexistent threats to his movie to hype it, so the creation of imagined enemies and exaggerated threats to Christianity by "moral values" mongers of the right has its own secular purpose. The idea is to intimidate and marginalize anyone who objects to their efforts to impose the most conservative of Christian dogma on public policy. If you're against their views, you don't have a differing opinion — you're anti-Christian (even if you are a Christian).

As Ms. Kissling points out, the 50 million Americans who belong to progressive religious organizations are rarely represented on television because "progressive religious leaders are so tolerant that they don't make good TV." The Rev. Bob Chase of the United Church of Christ agrees: "We're not exciting guests." His church's recent ad trumpeting its inclusion of gay couples was rejected by the same networks that routinely give a forum to the far more dramatic anti-gay views of Mr. Falwell. Ms. Kissling laments that contemporary progressive Christians lack an intellectual star to rival Reinhold Niebuhr or William Sloane Coffin, but adds that today "Jesus Christ would have a tough time getting covered by TV if he didn't get arrested."

I'd actually heard about O'Reilly's ridiculous "Christmas Under Siege" garbage a while ago, and then came across a longer article in Salon, entitled "The Grinch who saved Christmas", which covers some of the same territory as Rich. After reading that article, I thought about adding my rant about how whiney and confrontational these people have become, but I resisted because I felt like that was exactly what O'Reilly wants. They make money by antagonizing, and I didn't want to be a part of it. But Rich's article did such a perfect job of capturing my sentiments, I couldn't let it go by without a mention.

I grew up celebrating both Hanukkah and Christmas. I don't have a problem with it when people wish me a Merry Christmas. I actually hate the term "Happy Holidays" because it sounds so generic and half-ass: if you're going to try to be inoffensive, don't mention holidays at all because unless you are Jewish or Christian, there isn't really much of a holiday going on. (I know there is an overlap with Ramadan some years, but what about atheists?)

At MIT, there was a small tree put up outside the Student Center. It was known as the "Non-Denominational Holiday Shrub." So I took to calling my menorah a "Non-Denominational Holiday Candle Holder." It makes about as much sense.

I'm more bothered by the fact that corporations use these holidays and all other holidays as marketing tools. Does Wal-Mart really want me to have a Happy Holiday? No, Wal-Mart wants money--but getting people in the "Holiday Spirit" helps them do that.

John Boykin's "Can the 'Christ' Be Kept in Christmas" was an audio commentary on All Things Considered a couple of weeks ago that explored the commercialization of Christmas and also the weird idea of having a holiday that focuses so much on a baby. Boykin points out that we don't celebrate Martin Luther King Jr's birth on his birthday, but rather look at his life and teachings. Boykin would be happy giving up Christmas to total secularization (returning it to its pagan roots perhaps?) and celebrating Easter as a real Christian holiday instead.

So I am not offended by a "Merry Christmas" from anyone. I am offended by people trying to tear this country apart for ratings, for money, and for power. I am offended by people who are so mean-spirited and angry that they use the facade of a holiday as a reason to attack other people. I am also offended by people who are in the majority and who have power whining about persecution when there is so much real persecution in this world.