While I agree that if there was a provable connection of what was said was a real assault on someones beliefs, then, of course, they have every right to respond and express themselves. My argument here is that there was an implication by imagination. Nothing was said in the original post that ever implied an intentional omission of any other entity allegedly born on the same date.
I have to draw the line at making up implications just based on ones own feelings and not taking into account exactly what the "offender" was trying to say. I see, from his past and even current communications that he has a fairly advanced intellect and although he probably knew that it was going to cause a stir, mostly because of his knowledge of how the mind works. He set it up and everyone was expecting the topic to be Christmas when it was not intended to be. Without those direct words and without knowing for sure what was being implied, if anything, then it just became a situation of falsely accusing someone of something wrong when it was nothing of the sort according to his words. That isn't defensible for anyone or part of freedom of speech. He spoke only the truth, everyone else leaped to a conclusion that was unprovable and therefore amounted to nothing more then reactionary gossip.
I, however, am also making too much of it, so I will stop from my end. It's how I see it, others obviously see it differently. That's OK as long as they don't try to attach a witch hunt to a statement that really said or did nothing wrong. That just isn't good in my opinion.
He's a jerk, and never shows any signs of remorse when he misbehaves. 
The reactions of the army people in the audience were really funny, too. They all seemed to really enjoy the spectacle. 
