An article by Eliane Glaser conflates two separate issues. She starts out from the fact that she's Jewish and celebrates Hanukah rather than Christmas; at this time of year she has a 'yuletide resentment' (though a seemingly mild one) about the dominant Christian symbols and assumptions. She then goes on to challenge the institution of an established church and religion, in favour of the principle of the separation of church and state.
I support that principle. A secular democracy should not privilege one religion above others and should not privilege religion as such in opposition to unbelief. It is no business of the state what metaphysical beliefs people hold; the state should be neutral about such matters, leaving people free to practise what religion they choose or to practise no religion at all.
But this does not entail that in any given territory, national arena, political community or what have you, all religious traditions will be equally prevalent. Willy-nilly, in countries where Christianity has been the dominant religion historically, Christmas rather than Hanukah (or any other festival) will assume a higher profile with the general public, and its traditions and symbols be more pervasive. This is not merely not a matter for resentment or concern - it follows from the very principles of secularism, freedom of opinion, belief and therefore religion which Glaser supports that things may turn out so, with religious affiliations not distributed evenly as between different faiths.
A Jew in this country who's bothered by the prevalence of Christian symbols at Christmas should find something more important to worry about.