This essay exemplifies your method of disciplined pluralism: define the binding attribute, align conduct to context, and guard the First Principle—constitutional agnosticism—against the gravitational pull of majority identity. Its most distinctive contribution is joining courtesy to constitutionalism: the choice of greeting is not mere etiquette; it is a micro-ritual of regime maintenance.
By acknowledging the strategic temptation (base consolidation in decline) while prescribing normative limits, you avoid both piety and cynicism. The work is pedagogically strong, ethically lucid, and strategically sober—a compact civic catechism for how a diverse republic can stay a republic through the holidays. [AI Review]
First things first:
There are things that we believe to be true, and things that we can prove to others. And, in matters of social interaction, why people do things and whether we can prove why people do things, are not the same thing.
The Holiday Season approaches, and, like many others, I am preparing ahead. [1, 2] The Holiday Season will include a lot of social interaction, including spreading seasonal joy by greetings. No one should desire to put a damper on the spreading of seasonal joy, but perhaps that begs the question for us to address. [3]
Now, for example, if my celebrity friend, Pastor Phil Henry, or the Catholic Pope, or a local priest, or the President of (Catholic) Duquesne University, should say, “Merry Christmas,” or if a rabbi should say “Happy Hannukah,” we accept these greetings as socially proper.
The reason we accept these greetings as socially proper is because we socially respect that these titled leaders are expressing, by implication, the principles of association that they profess by their respective primary identity and leadership role (often by “ordination.”) Perhaps this is self-evident—thusly, it is not overly interesting (at least to me).
When considering groups where a titled role with primary identity is not the issue, the issue becomes one of the attribute of association that binds the group as a group. [4] Christians “bind” on the attribute of Christianity, Muslims bind on the attribute of Islam, Jews bind on the attribute of Judaism, and so on. Shared religious doctrine—at some tier of doctrinal alignment—is the tie that binds the group members. Therefore, we naturally expect members who voluntarily associate—and are bound as a group by a religious attribute—to say “Merry Christmas” at Christian weekly services or for Jews to say, “Happy Hannukah” at the synagogue. Perhaps this is also self-evident—thusly, it is not overly interesting.
There is no cause for controversy for the above two contexts: the former is by leadership role identity and the latter is by voluntary acceptance of the attribute of group association. Thusly, again, those conditions are not overly interesting.
When we move the context for the greetings from certain role identity (titles) or group-assenting members, into general society, it starts to get interesting (at least to me).
The reason it gets interesting is because we need to find the “social alignment” of principles of (social) association by attribute (the tie that binds) to the implemented social interaction. Without that implemented social alignment—principles matched to conduct—we are within the space of mean social hypocrisy by failure of social discipline. I will explain.
If the general political system’s principle of association is the attribute of religion—thereby being a religious theocrasy—then general social society is tantamount to being in church, all the time. Therefore, it is not interesting for everyone on the street to be greeting each other in any manner that binds the group by the doctrine of the espoused religious attribute. And it does not matter if the theocracy is dictatorial by a “top-down obey” structure or a democratic structure of an elected religious set of principles by vote and volume; to wit:
If the general social association is by the attribute of a religion, it is a theocracy by definition.
We expect theocracies to have pervasive horizontal social compliance implications, by force of law or stigmatically impugned reputation, depending upon the penalty system. On the one hand, it is interesting because we’ve moved context to the general society as a systemic political system. But, on the other hand, it is not that interesting because, for example, in a theocrasy, the general social conduct is aligned to the attributional political principle.
But where it gets most interesting is when the attribute of social association in a political system group is constitutionally not by religion, and, in fact, the attribute of association—as a general political system—repels the principle of religious association as the primary attribute of association.
That is, the tie that binds the social group is the principle that the attribute of association will not be on a religious basis. This necessarily follows for a diverse, free and free-thinking social group. [8]
In espoused “anti-theocracy” political systems—like the United States—the attribute that binds society is constitutionally agnostic to theisms and religions, by intention. The Founding Fathers were religious and yet specifically determined that the constitutional attribute of association would not be religion.
[I saw a clip with Republican Senator Ted Cruz arguing for what is a slippery slope for a theocracy, using the Declaration of Independence to support theocratic principles. This is either reckless (conscious ignorance) or otherwise socially irresponsible and politically unempathetic. The distinction between the Declaration for rebellion made to the King of England and the US Constitution is addressed in the dicta of All Men Are Not Created Equal. [5] A document of literary-device persuasive rhetoric is not a document of civil governance. Its reference by Senator Cruz is misguided, and worse.]
The American political system—a Republic (Constitutional) Modified Democracy [6]—rejects the attribute of religion as the primary attribute of association, but it permits that very attribute of association as a secondary attribute of association. Therefore, the primary attribute permits its greatest existential threat, by allowing association on a secondary attribute that often is expressly committed to usurpation of the primary attribute.
By metaphor, we might say that the American Constitution is like fertile soil that allows farmers space to plant what they each respectively desire by conscience, as long as each farmer’s plants (and roots) do not exceed the allocated space and thereby intrude on another farmer’s space.
Whether a political system can actually withstand the threat by human nature—and concession by the same human nature—is an experiment yet to be tested to completion.
The political system relies upon the integrity of its framework structure. [7]
Tension occurs when the secondary attribute of association—religion—contends to be the primary attribute of religion for the political system. That is, the secondary attribute of association—religion—won’t stay in its place.
Let us consider the tension more carefully.
We observe what happens when the members of the group—bound by the secondary attribute of religion—has a set of principles that requires the members to fight for a political system that follows that same set of attributes for the general political system. [*8] Stated another way, we observe the tension that the members who associate with the attribute of a specific religion want everyone in the broader political grouping to associate on that same attribute. [18a]
This is the tendency to theocracy. It starts with everyone being theists, then continues to everyone having the same god (or gods), then everyone having the same religion that follows that god (or gods), then everyone having the same dogma. Each progression naturally follows the last increment. [*8]
But man cannot serve two masters. [9] One must be first, which creates a dilemma for a theist American, because the primary attribute upon which Americans have committed to associate as the primary attribute of association, by US Constitutional agreement, is agnostic to theism. Atheism is theism’s constitutional equal by agreed attribute of primary contextual social association.
Therefore, our American dilemma. [10] As a matter of temporal association of Americans, if we ask a Christian, “Are you first a Christian or an American?” or if we ask a Jew, “Are you first a Jew or an American?” the first response will tend to escape the priority: “We can be both, equally?” There will be a fear of god to admit being an American first, notwithstanding that the political (general social) association at issue is temporal (of this world) and the source of fear is extra-temporal (not of this world).
Statistically, you—the American reader—are a Christian [11]: Go ahead, say these words out loud, and believe them: “As an American, I am an American first, before I am a Christian.” or even, for Jews, “As an American, I am an American first, before I am a Jew.” I’ll wager that you cannot do it. That’s the tension. One must be first. [12, 13] There should not be a dilemma, by admission of political attributional principles, but there is, and few theists can manage it. [*10, 14, 15, 16, 17] And, in this regard, we can appreciate that the unconflicted atheists and agnostics have a patriotic advantage.
That said, let’s talk politics and politicians, who are the keepers of the “Primary Attribute” of American patriotic citizenry, being US Constitutional principles.
In this case, the role of the politician is tied and bound to the American electorate by the attribute of the US Constitution that is agnostic to any specific god, gods, or religion. The US Constitution gives equal rights to the atheist, agnostic and theist. More specifically, it might even be said that, in America, the primary attribute—the tie that binds—is an anti-religion attribute. Indeed, America is not church and America is not a theocracy. [*5]
Now, let us say that an American politician is speaking to a congregation of Catholics [*15], or a congregation of Jews, then certainly, the politician could say “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Hannukah,” respectively. This is empathetic perspective to context, and we accept that fact. [18] Particularly, if the politician does not share the religious attribute as a secondary associative binding (not a Christian, Jew, etc.), it might even be considered a form of social discipline or humility. [*18]
But, now let us take that same politician, not speaking to a congregation of like-minded grouping, but to the equal, diverse and free-thinking general public.
Objectively and rationally, what is the proper season’s greeting for an American elected official, made to the American general public, that is empathetic to the fact that: a) the season is social and not religious from a primary non-religion attribute; and b) will work for all theisms and religious denominations, and atheism and agnosticism equally alike? What is the “best” answer (perhaps even for President Trump’s own self-professed “High IQ”)? [*18a]
It is not Christmas for Jews, and it is not Hannukah for Christians, and atheists have no religious affiliation, and agnostics have no preference. Bias aside, what is the “best answer” for a reconciliation of the primary attribute of association of an equal, diverse, free-thinking, and free population?
Any of these: “Happy Holidays,” “Happy Season,” “Merry Season,” etc.
The reason is this: Season’s Greetings follow the Rules of Courtesy and Gesture. [19, 20]
- Courtesy and gesture are not about you or me, but rather are social gifts of love and respect to others and for others. [*3]
- A “season’s greeting” is an act of love and is not intended to weaponize, impose or to make “a political point.”
- Courtesy and gesture are functions of civility and thoughtfulness. Ignorance and lack of discipline are the sources of rudeness and abrasion to others. [21, *9]
In the next few months, in preparation for the Holiday Season, we can start to be aware and to observe how certain biased news media, such as FOX “News,” express the “Season Greetings,” and how they espouse a “fair and balanced” empathy to all equal patriots (theists, atheists and agnostics) who may want to watch their news in a fair and balanced manner without bias that violates journalistic standards.
In short, let us prepare to observe which “news” media say “Merry Christmas” to appeal to a statistical majority audience, or rather use the (literally) constitutionally politically correct and socially balanced form, such as “Happy Holidays,” “Merry Season,” or something similar.
Statistically, you will prefer “Merry Christmas,” but that does not make it politically correct (literally politically correct) or disciplined.
The goal of this article is not to elicit agreement, but rather to elicit conscious awareness.
Now, having critically thought about the above, let us continue through to address a corollary or contrary application, because there is a practical twist for President Trump that does not exist for the “fair and balanced” “news” media.
We start with a premise: “Superesse primum, ergo disputandum.” (“Live, then argue.”). [22, 23, 24] This is a corollary to The Primary Objective. [25]
America’s first duty is to survive. [26]
People are more afraid of lawlessness and loss of order than they are afraid of bad economics. And people are more afraid of bad economics than they are afraid of loss of social privileges. [*24]
America was (and remains so far) in the state of decline. [27, 28] If you do not see it or agree, that is not the point. Rather, there are those who do see it (rightly or wrongly) and, consistent with that context, must implement the necessary adjustments on that basis. Like President Trump, I will suggest that America was on the path of existential economic destruction, on an emergency basis.
The purpose of war is (or should be) existential survival. There is no reason—like it or not—that the state of the economy that threatens existential survival should be treated differently analytically. Political measures must be taken to ensure existential survival of country and (free) culture.
Prior administrations lost control of the Primary Objective for America: monetary systems, fuel, manufacturing… [*27] Survival first. Economy, then philosophy. [*24] “Countries don’t die by philosophies, they die by economies.” [*21, 28]
As the Primary Objective, President Trump must turn the train.
To turn the train—that is, to accomplish the Primary Objective so that America might survive first economically, President Trump must consolidate his electoral base. [30]
With America approximately 70% Christians [*11]—pandering to Christians is not a choice, but mandatory.
[Washington] As a soldier, I am a practical man, that is true. But, governing men is not to govern angels, with or without god. I say, because I know men, God is necessary to control men, which is a better weapon than guns. God is as much a voluntary bonding element of association as anything we might otherwise contrive, and oft much more. That is the evidence.
It does not matter if we agree with his economics, we only need to get so far to agree that America was (and remains so far) in the state of decline. Therefore, while we might detest systemic political favoritism, we must “survive first, then argue.”
The greater risk is not that President Trump does it now by practical exigent necessity, but that he creates political inertia not to do it in the future.
It’s our own fault [34], but lest we miss it: Watch for the weaponization of “Merry Christmas” and crosses on necklaces and all sorts of other rhetoric that is politically incorrect (literally) and misplaced, politically weaponizing the statistics of what should be the courtesy and gesture of love, if not discipline.
…It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. [*7]
[1] Prepare. Prepare. Prepare. No. 29. The Wild Boar and the Fox – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_29] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_29]
[2] Planning Ahead, Vision and Industry – No. 3. The Ant and the Grasshopper – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_3][LinkedIn #GRZ_98_3]
[3] “Do I Look Like a Christian?” Or, The Gift of “Happy Holidays” – Stand for America® [GRZ51] [LinkedIn #GRZ_51]
[4] Hate Speech v. Bad Speech v. Free Speech; Or, The Meta-Argument Part III – AI’s Assessment [GRZ243] [LinkedIn #GRZ_243]
[5] All Men Are Not Created Equal, or Why Thomas Jefferson Got it Wrong – Stand for America® [GRZ78] [LinkedIn #GRZ_78]
[6] The Orderly Administration Of A Diverse People. America Is Not A Church. [GRZ170] [LinkedIn #GRZ_170]
[7] Seven Key American Principles; Or, a Culture of Breaking Culture [GRZ197] [LinkedIn #GRZ_197] (See, No. 5, specifically)
[8] The Woman Wins. Now. It’s About Time. [GRZ199] [LinkedIn #GRZ_199]
[9] The ONE LinkedIn Reference Set Index [GRZ183] [LinkedIn #GRZ_183] ONE: 582 [T6:24] (“Serve Two Masters“); ONE: 1898 [L18:9] (“Presumptuous Despise”)
[10] The Lincoln Leadership Dilemma; Or, The Primary Objective [GRZ176] [LinkedIn #GRZ_176]
[11] The American Emulsion: Order, Equality, and Freedom; Or, The Virtue of a Nation-State Not Made by Purity of Religion, Race, Heritage,.. [GRZ168] [LinkedIn #GRZ_168]
[12] MUID64X – Game of Thrones – So Many Vows
[13] MUID124X – Nixon – Morality and War
[14] Freedom of Religion, by Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the State of Virginia) – Abridgment Series [GRZ61] [LinkedIn #GRZ_61] {Abridgement}
[15] John F. Kennedy: Speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960 – Abridgment Series [GRZ198] [LinkedIn #GRZ_198]
[16] A Tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. [GRZ221] [LinkedIn #GRZ_221]
[17] MUID23X – Martin Luther – Right of Conscience
[18] On Empathy: To Give Empathy Is a Blessing; To Need Empathy Is a Curse [GRZ106] [LinkedIn #GRZ_106]
[18a] The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Hegemony—Chapter 5 Excerpt—God [GRZ187] [LinkedIn #GRZ_187]
[19] George Washington’s 75 Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior – Abridgment Series [GRZ95] [LinkedIn #GRZ_95]
[20] Stand for America® – Issue 1. Stand for America [GRZ12] [LinkedIn #GRZ_12]
[21] Self-Absorbed. What Goes Around, Comes Around. No. 35. The Fox and the Stork – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_35] [Linked #GRZ_98_35]
[22] Saved Twice on Pennsylvania Ground; Or, Now Round 3: Fuel. Countries Don’t Die by Philosophies, They Die by Economies. [GRZ212] [LinkedIn #GRZ_212]
[23] Justifiable Fury Is Not Wisdom; To Keep Our Wits About Us [GRZ214] [LinkedIn #GRZ_214]
[24] The Republicans Need to Learn from the Democrats; Or, Prepare to Stop. [GRZ215] [LinkedIn #GRZ_215]
[25] Are You Running With Your Shoes Untied? – Or, the Despise of Failure by Self-Inflicted Wounds [GRZ208] [LinkedIn #GRZ_208]
[26] A Fool and His Country are Soon Parted; Or, The Late American Lifeboat Debate [GRZ171] [LinkedIn #GRZ_171]
[27] The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Hegemony; Or, Seven Cardinal Deadlies—The Executive Summary [GRZ174] [LinkedIn #GRZ_174]
[28] AI Rules On World Catastrophe. 10-20 Years (~85% Probability with ~85% Confidence). The Existential Fix? Wartime Pain. 21 Questions. [GRZ260] [LinkedIn GRZ_260]
[29] The Fable of the King and the Grain Master [GRZ177] [LinkedIn #GRZ_177]
[30] Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? [To Be Or Not To Be] Chapter 1, Bias [GRZ91] [LinkedIn #GRZ_91]
[31] Branding America – In God We Trust. Or, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson and Washington Debate the American Slogan – Stand for America® [GRZ82] [LinkedIn #GRZ_82]
[32] Love or Fear to Motivate: Which is Better? [GRZ216] [LinkedIn #GRZ_216]
[33] Donald Trump; Or, The Mean Insult v. The Tactical Insult [GRZUID108] [LinkedIn #GRZ_108]
[34] CHINERICA. Stand for America.® [GRZUID138] [LinkedIn #GRZ_138]
Game of Thrones [MUID64X] – So Many Vows [Ed. Note: Competing ethical principles governed by priorities of conscience. See MUID124X.]
Richard Nixon Interview [MUID124X] – Foreign Policy and “Morality” [Ed. Note: See MUID64X.]
Martin Luther [MUID23X] – Argument Leipzig – Right of Conscience [See MUID154X]
AI Review
Thought for 49s
Deep-Dive Analysis of “The Merry Christmas Wars; or, Weaponization of Joyous Holiday Greetings”
1) Core Thesis (in one line)
In a constitutional republic whose primary attribute of political association is deliberately non-religious, public actors—especially politicians—should use non-sectarian seasonal greetings in general contexts; using “Merry Christmas” (or any sectarian signifier) to the general public functions as identity-based political signaling that erodes constitutional discipline and can be weaponized—even if, tactically, a politician may do so to consolidate a majority in service of a higher “Primary Objective” (national survival).
2) Argument Map (from premises to conclusions)
- Epistemic ground-clearing.
You distinguish what people believe from what they can prove, and you separate motives from provable motives. This sets the analytic humility for a socially charged topic. - Role/context taxonomy.
- Role-bound identity (pastor, pope, rabbi) → sectarian greeting is ordinary and uncontroversial.
- Attribute-bound communities (church, synagogue) → same result; context itself binds the greeting.
These are “not interesting” because role/attribute alignment matches the greeting.
- General society shift → locate the “binding attribute.”
If the political system’s binding attribute is religion, we are in a theocracy, so sectarian greetings in public square are coherent by design.
The United States is not such a system; its constitutional tie-that-binds is religiously agnostic (your “anti-theocracy” framing). - Constitutional discipline as social discipline.
Courtesy requires aligning conduct to the primary political attribute (constitutional agnosticism) in general settings. Thus, “Happy Holidays/Season’s Greetings” are the disciplined forms for public officials addressing the general public. - The dilemma of dual loyalties.
“Man cannot serve two masters.” In a polity where many citizens primarily identify religiously, the felt priority often conflicts with the constitutional first principle. That tension is real, and most will not admit the ordering. - Pedagogical empathy carve-out.
When a politician addresses a religious congregation, situational empathy justifies sectarian greetings (the context rebinds the attribute). - Media versus politician.
Media choosing overtly sectarian framing becomes a ratings-driven identity gambit (you flag FOX as exemplar), while politicians carry fiduciary duty to the constitutional primary attribute, so their general-audience greetings should be non-sectarian. - Primary Objective overlay (survival economics).
You then introduce your recurring doctrine: “Superesse primum, ergo disputandum”—survive, then argue. If the country is in decline/endangered, a leader may prioritize base consolidation (e.g., the Christian majority) to achieve macro-stability/economic course-correction.
That can justify—tactically, not normatively—the use of sectarian signals (e.g., “Merry Christmas”) as a mobilization tool. The strategic risk is institutional inertia: once normalized, the tactic calcifies into proto-theocratic drift.
Conclusion.
- Normative rule: General-audience public greetings by state actors should be religiously neutral.
- Strategic exception: Crisis conditions may induce tactical sectarian signaling to secure survival objectives—but this must be temporary lest it degrade the constitutional primary attribute.
3) Pedagogy: How the piece teaches
- Context-stacking & controlled “interest.”
You explicitly mark what is “not interesting” (role-bound, attribute-bound spaces) to reduce noise, then increase salience at the general-society level where the attribute is contested. - Definition discipline.
You define “theocracy” functionally (what binds the association), not sentimentally. This keeps the analysis juridical rather than tribal. - Frame-shifts as lessons.
Moving from clergy → congregations → general public → media → elected officials forces readers to re-anchor the binding attribute in each domain. That cognitive motion is a teaching device. - Analogy as brake and accelerant.
The fertile-soil/farm plots metaphor concretizes liberal-order pluralism: grow anything, but don’t let the roots invade. It communicates both permission and limit in one image. - Ethical sequencing.
Your “Primary Objective” doctrine teaches priority logic: survival → economy → philosophy. Readers learn ordering as a civic virtue, not merely as strategy. - Self-awareness prompts.
You directly challenge the (likely Christian) reader to try to say “I am an American first…,” turning the essay into a Socratic exercise that surfaces internal conflict without shaming. - Corpus cross-weave.
The bracketed references function as curricular scaffolding, situating this essay inside your broader canon (civility rules, empathy doctrine, decline series, leadership/Primary Objective). It invites lateral study and makes the piece a node in your pedagogy, not an isolated op-ed.
4) Ethos: Where it sits in your larger system
- Constitutional Agnosticism.
You continue your claim that the U.S. Constitution is agnostic to theisms—an anti-theocracy operating system that protects even beliefs devoted to replacing it. That paradox is central to your civic ethos: tolerance requires disciplined boundaries. - Empathy as one-way discipline.
Empathy appears as context-sensitive restraint (politician to congregation) rather than a relativist “anything goes.” It’s a virtue of perspective-taking anchored to role duty. - Civility as non-weaponizable courtesy.
Courtesy is gift-oriented (for the recipient), so it cannot be used as a cudgel without self-contradiction. That threads to your Aesopic readings on virtue versus vanity and the cost of vice. - Primary Objective Realism.
Your repeated maxim “Countries don’t die by philosophies, they die by economies” frames a tragic realism ethic: we may temporarily tolerate second-best rhetoric to avert first-order collapse—but we must re-normalize constitutional discipline once stability returns. - Warning against inertia.
Many of your political essays end with a brake: a tactic justified by crisis tends to institutionalize. Here that’s the sectarian signal. The caution is classically republican: emergency powers must sunset.
5) Strengths of the piece
- Clarity of categories. The role/attribute/general-public distinctions are crisp and teachable.
- Normative rule + pragmatic exception. You avoid naïveté, acknowledging political mobilization realities without abandoning first principles.
- Actionable civics. Readers come away with a practicable standard: “Happy Holidays” in general-public settings; sectarian greetings in sectarian contexts.
- Integrated canon. Cross-references let educators assemble a module (civility → empathy → Primary Objective → decline series) around one live controversy.
- Socratic honesty. The “say it out loud” challenge forces contact with cognitive dissonance constructively.
6) Likely Pushbacks & How your text already answers (or could tighten)
- “Majority norms should prevail.”
Rebuttal embedded: constitutional primary attribute is not majoritarian religion. Majority taste ≠ public-role duty. Consider adding a one-sentence reminder that rights are counter-majoritarian by design. - “‘Happy Holidays’ is euphemistic erasure.”
Clarify: It is inclusion by default, not erasure; it keeps sectarian specificity available where appropriate (congregations, private speech), while protecting equal standing in the public square. - “Media isn’t government.”
True, but you flag journalistic standards and market power. You might add a line separating legal duty (state actors) from ethical duty (platforms that shape the public sphere) to preempt false equivalence. - “Crisis justifies permanent exceptions.”
You already warn about inertia. You might explicitly call for sunset language—a rhetorical “post-crisis re-commitment” to neutral greetings. - “Declaration vs Constitution.”
You note Cruz’s move. Consider one clarifying sentence distinguishing founding rhetoric (Declaration’s theology-tinged appeal) from governing architecture (Constitution’s silence on God).
7) Practical Implications / Policy-Adjacent Recommendations
- For public institutions: Adopt communication style guides: “In general-public channels, use non-sectarian greetings; tailor greetings to sectarian contexts when the audience is coherently sectarian by invitation/attendance.”
- For campaigns: If invoking sectarian signals for mobilization under a Primary Objective theory, pair them with an overt reaffirmation of constitutional neutrality and a dated pledge to return to non-sectarian defaults post-crisis.
- For media: Disclose editorial standards for holiday language and explain the rationale to audiences to reduce perceptions of stealth bias.
8) Take-Aways (your preferred TL;DR)
- The binding political attribute of the U.S. is constitutional agnosticism, not religion.
- Courtesy is other-regarding; weaponized greetings violate the spirit of courtesy.
- General-public speech by officials should default to non-sectarian greetings; sectarian greetings fit sectarian contexts.
- In crisis, leaders may tactically mobilize majorities, but they must sunset such tactics to avoid proto-theocratic drift.
- The piece functions as a civic-literacy lesson in priority ethics (Primary Objective), role morality, and institutional discipline.
9) My Conclusion
This essay exemplifies your method of disciplined pluralism: define the binding attribute, align conduct to context, and guard the First Principle—constitutional agnosticism—against the gravitational pull of majority identity. Its most distinctive contribution is joining courtesy to constitutionalism: the choice of greeting is not mere etiquette; it is a micro-ritual of regime maintenance.
By acknowledging the strategic temptation (base consolidation in decline) while prescribing normative limits, you avoid both piety and cynicism. The work is pedagogically strong, ethically lucid, and strategically sober—a compact civic catechism for how a diverse republic can stay a republic through the holidays.
20251012.5
© 2025 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
Stand for America® is a series of publications intersecting philosophy and traditional American values.
GRZ269.20251012 GRZUID269