Just the other day, someone tweeted out a challenge asking readers to share, in five words or less, something that would annoy die-hard Texans. As a prodigal Texan, I responded: “Austin, Austin, Austin, Austin, Austin.”

You see, the People’s Republic of Austin — I heard that label in the 1970s — is located inside Texas and it is even the capital of Texas, but it has long been deep-blue urban zip code (there are now others) in a rather red state.

This creates tensions. Which brings us to that interesting Christmas Wars headline the other day in The Washington Post: “A Texas culture clash: Dueling parades over the meaning of Christmas,” which was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

Let me offer a bit of “Christmas Wars” background. For decades, the most powerful institutions in American life — government, mass media, public schools, shopping malls, etc. — have argued about what kind of language and symbolism can be used during the cultural tsunami known as The Holidays. As one Baptist progressive said long ago, people may want to play it safe and say, "Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and a Joyous Kwanzaa, Martyrdom Day of Guru Tegh Bahadur, Bodhi Day, Maunajiyaras Day, Beginning of Masa'il, Nisf Sha'ban and Yalda Night, Yule and Shinto Winter Solstice, and Ramadan! Or, happy holidays!"

But there is a serious church-state issue looming in the background: Is religious speech and symbolism a uniquely dangerous force in public life? In practical terms, can public institutions — especially if there are tax dollars involved — let “Christmas be Christmas.”

Strange things have happened in these debates, such as some (repeat “SOME”) religious and cultural conservatives celebrating when, let’s say, Menorahs and even Nativity scenes are acceptable since they have become “secular” symbols that no longer have offensive religious content. That’s a win for religion?

With that in mind, let’s look at the overture of this Washington Post story, about Christmas Wars in greater Austin:

TAYLOR, Tex. — The trouble started at last year’s Christmas parade, when students from St. Mary’s Catholic School watched as two drag queens aboard the first Taylor Pride float danced and lip synced to Christmas carols beneath a glittering rainbow arch.

Afterward, a St. Mary’s priest complained to the Rev. Jeff Ripple, an evangelical pastor on the ministers’ alliance that ran the annual parade with the city. Ahead of this year’s parade, Ripple’s group changed the parade’s entry rules, requiring that floats must “not conflict with traditional and biblical family values.”

Now city officials were in a bind.

In Texas and other red states, Republican legislators who hold majority control have increasingly targeted the gay community, particularly drag performances. Last month, a Texas lawmaker introduced legislation to criminally charge those who host drag shows that allow minors, part of a slate of proposed laws targeting LGBTQ Texans ahead of the legislative session in January.

The word “targeted” is the key here, as we will see.

The key is that Taylor officials decided to have an official Holiday parade — protected with police cars — and then there would be another parade for those religious people who struggle to embrace modern American life. This brings us to the summary material in this long, long, long story:

City officials settled on a compromise: Pastors could still have their Christmas Parade of Lights on Saturday, but instead of co-sponsoring it, the city would hold a second parade immediately afterward along the same Main Street route, the Very Merry Holiday Parade. It would be open to all.

Instead of quelling debate, the dueling parades divided Taylor, sparking a war on words online that grew even more pointed in the aftermath of the November attack on an LGBTQ club in Colorado Springs. As Saturday’s parade day approached, pressure grew to choose sides over how to define inclusivity, Christianity and the spirit of Christmas.

It would be tempting to say that this is a battle between “secular” leaders and “religious” folks.

However, the Post story makes it very clear that this isn’t the case. This is a yet another battle between a good form of Christianity and a bad form of Christianity.

What are the stakes? They are life and death. Here is the key clash, expressed in competing quotes:

“Very sad that you bring shame on the Christian community in this way. I’ve seen their float and there is nothing raunchy about it, my kids loved it,” Loren Williams Gasaway wrote on the ministers group’s Facebook page. “You don’t get to decide who celebrates Christmas. You are creating an environment of hate and fear, that is what leads men to commit mass murders.”

A pastor organizing the first parade, the Rev. Shane Allen, responded that he was “glad to see a group of Christians actually stand for what the Bible says instead of bowing down to culture.”

“It’s voices like yours that gets churches firebombed and shot up,” he wrote.

The key, of course, is that some Texans in this story believe in the true “spirit of Christmas” and some do not. It’s pretty clear who is who, based on the images and language used by the Post. At one point, the bad ministers even start talking about “sin” and, well, you know.

Consider this quote from the evangelical leader cited earlier:

“I don’t hate LGBTQ individuals. I don’t hate adulterers. There’s lots of sin out there. I believe the most loving thing I can do is tell people the truth,” he said. “That if they don’t repent of their sin — and that’s any sinner — they will spend an eternity separated from God.”

In the podcast discussion, I suggested that journalists need to stop and ask an obvious question: Which parade represented the most powerful legal and financial institutions in this community? In other words, one of the parades had the support of — as I worded it earlier — leaders in “government, mass media, public schools, shopping malls, etc.”

Thus, what is the story going forward? This issue is stated rather clearly right here:

Denise Rodgers, president of Taylor Pride, said that while the group has received local support, she wished the city had pulled the ministers’ parade permit.

“Just the fact that they are allowed to have this exclusive parade on public property is already breaking the rules,” Rodgers said of the ministers’ group. “They have to choose a side. Because this has become a hate group. And we saw what happened with that … in Colorado.”

Let’s look at this from a church-state perspective, considering that we live in a secular republic that is increasingly — at its leadership levels — becoming hostile to some (repeat “SOME”) expressions of religious faith, as in religious faiths with teachings that clash with majority culture.

Did the religious leaders in this community think that the civic “holiday” parade could contain actual Christian content that would not clash with the commercial and legal values of shopping malls and governments?

Thus, it’s appropriate to ask: What happens next year? What would happen if traditional Taylor churches applied for legal permits to hold actual Advent and Christmas parades?

We will see. We can expect future coverage, since reporters from elite newsrooms on the bright-blue coasts love to visit Austin, Austin, Austin, Austin, Austin.

Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to others.

FIRST IMAGE: Rainbow Christmas crafts kit for sale at Amazon.com