"What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

What indeed is in a name? What if my “garbage” is your “rose.” Confusing, yes, but who’s to say you’re correct?

You can’t monopolize the interpretation of words — they are in the public sphere, and people will make of it what they will.

This is certainly applicable to Charles Darwin and Friedrich Nietzsche, both of whom would be ill if they knew how their ideas were used to advance the agendas of the Social Darwinists and the Third Reich respectively. It is also true for the holidays, which manifest in both traditional and secularized forms.

We would be well to remember that words are not ideas. Not everything that goes by the name “Darwinism” is the same, and not all Christmases are the same — nor do they seek to be. Regardless of what it originally celebrated, for many it is the celebration of giving, getting and eating.

One might argue that this is not the true meaning of Christmas because it doesn’t relate to the first meaning of Christmas. Such a person assumes that older interpretations are always superior to newer ones, forgetting that those who do not subscribe to his set of beliefs do not place a higher value on the traditional meaning of Christmas.

People whine about the “War on Christmas.” (The War on Christmas, I should add, is part of the trend of battling abstract concepts, such as terror. Grief, anger and fatigue are next.) These people primarily lament two aspects of the secularization of Christmas — the refusal to celebrate the holiday for its religious significance in schools and the commercialization of the holiday by businesses.

The first is easily dealt with by evoking the First Amendment, for freedom of and freedom from religion are rights. Religion can be taught in schools, but it cannot be celebrated. The status of the secular Christmas is less questionable and probably more common — it is therefore more commonly celebrated in classrooms.

The commercialization of Christmas is only a problem if one believes that the holiday must be about Christ. But for many, perhaps most, the holiday is about precisely this commercialization.

This is not evidence of a War on Christmas — it is evidence of a war for Christmas. It is naive to assume that the first meaning of something is correct and that everything henceforth is deviant. Traditionalists, if they are to win this “war,” must have a more sophisticated view of the situation, stop considering themselves correct de facto and remember that religion and government cannot mix.

Shaun Poust is a freshman journalism major. E-mail him at spoust1@ithaca.edu.