Christopher Hitchens has a problem with Christmas in the White House

And I have to agree; the White House and our government in general need not promote any sort of religious holiday. Christopher Hitchens writes:

A reported scheme for a “nonreligious” celebration of Christmas in the Obama White House was over before it began, long before it could become part of that old seasonal favorite, “the war on Christmas.” I never believed the original reports anyway: The president has no need to incite those who already think that he is a closet Communist or stealth Muslim. But that doesn’t mean that there is nothing to argue about. The White House is, as some recent interlopers have again proved, public property. And its East Room is one of the parts of it that are not reserved for the First Family’s private life. So the constitutional question — should taxpayer-funded space be used for the affirmation of any faith? — is as real there, if not indeed more so, as it is anywhere else.

He goes on to talk about the origins of Christmas:

I never cease to be amazed by how little the Bible-believing Protestants, who constitute most of the soldiery in the Christmas wars, know about their own tradition. Under the rule of the Puritan Revolution in England, the celebration of Christmas was banned outright. This was for three reasons: The December fiesta was actually the honoring of paganism in disguise, and a descendant of the old rites of the winter solstice. Then, it was also a manifestation of popery and superstition (the “Christ-Mass”). Finally, it was an excuse for the riff-raff to get drunk and disorderly. Only the last part seems to have survived.

Source.