Who needs holy wars each Christmas?

`Tis the season for holy wars.

Isn't it funny how we can go for an entire year, enjoyingreligious peace and harmony? But when Christmas rolls around, whenwe're supposed to think about the Child's message of Peace on Earth,some people can't resist reopening the Crusades.

I'm talking about the battle over the display of religioussymbols, such as nativity scenes, on public property. I'm convincedthat most people don't particularly care either way; knowing thesensitivities of everyone, they would rather devote their energies tocelebrating the holidays in their own way.

But for zealots, respect and understanding is like somethingleft on the sidewalk you step in. Last year, the big fight was overa creche in City Hall. (A U.S. appeals court eventually ruled againstit.) This year, with Chicagoans too busy hating on the basis of raceto hate on the basis of religion, most of the action is in thesuburbs.

On one hand, you have atheist Robert I. Sherman, rushing fromsuburb to suburb, vowing to stomp out even the vaguest hint of publiccelebration of Christmas, be it a nativity scene on park land or areplica of a couple of choir boys next to a maintenance building onthe Tri-State Tollway. In Zion and Libertyville, Northbrook andMundelein, Mr. Sherman is making sure no one has to suffer thedisgusting sight of Mother and Child.

On the other hand, you have two determined women in Northbrookwho absolutely insisted that a nativity scene be allowed on park landin the center of town, fully knowing that much of Northbrook'spopulation is Jewish, that many Jews would be offended, that somewould complain, that it would divide the town. Every day, it wouldbe a cheery Christmas greeting to Northbrook's Jews saying: To hellwith your sensitivities.

So, it came to pass that both sides battled it out before astartled Northbrook Park District board. Board members used to thinkthat outrage was tennis players angry at a water fountain not workingat the tennis courts; at last week's meeting, board members faced aconstitutional crisis and an overflow crowd of red-hot ideologues.

Based on the assumption that "you can't please everyone, youcan't please anyone," the board took a course that, according toboard president John Wood, "attempted to keep the divisiveness withinthe village down to an absolute minimum" and to keep the district outof a costly court battle: It unanimously decided to prohibit thecreche.

Even if the fight is over there, the damage is done, withneighbor angry at neighbor. Those who would continue that fightshould ask themselves: Is winning worth it? Would it enrich ourlives, help us better understand each other, strengthen the ties ofour pluralistic society, bring us together? Does the simple presenceof a creche build your faith and win converts to Christianity? Doesthe absence of a creche win converts to atheism?

Do the inevitable court fights strengthen the Constitution, ordo they lead us down a road we'll regret? For example: If you canban a creche - a passive demonstration of religiosity - in a publicplace, how about an active demonstration, like Christmas carolling?If you can ban singing about Christmas, then can't speaking ofChristmas or other religious subjects be banned? If we controlreligious speech in public places, how about other kinds of speaking?

Sometimes we're better served if everyone would just shut up andsit down. Or go home and quietly send out their Christmas, Hanukkahor God-is-dead cards.

Dennis Byrne, whose column appears on Wednesdays, is a member ofthe Chicago Sun-Times editorial board.