Thoughts on Sanctity
December 9th, 2005 | by Wulfgar |The previous post, as lively as it is in comments, I fear somewhat misses the point. The question at hand, and it’s an important one, isn’t about who accepts what as appropriate celebration. To make it such turns it into a War On Christmas War on a holiday we value, only because of a feeling that some things are sanctified, holy. People often feel strong ties to their celebrations/feast days/holy observances. They tend to do so for a reason, always.
So, I find myself asking why does anyone feel that Christmas is under attack? That feeling has been devalued, promoted, stated as truth by Falafel Bill, and rarekly examined for what it is. Let’s at least keep the discussion in a common language, shall we? The point is one of Sanctity. Is Christmas a sanctified day, a holy day above reproach? The very notion of sanctity, of course, is that such a thing of such a quality cannot be attacked, reviled, or violated. I would posit that Christmas is indeed such a thing. Two thoughts come to the forefront: 1) why would any feel that Christmas is above reproach, and 2) if it is above reproach, why would any feel threatened by lame efforts to attack it? I’ll deal with the second … first.
#2, Christians, to whom Christmas is a high feast day, sanctify it because it is the very day of celebration that commemorates the coming of the spiritual savior. That’s pretty impressive stuff … so impressive that I would argue that those who feel the observance is being attacked are of somewhat less then steller faith. It’s patently impossible, given the Gospels as wrote, that Jesus was born in December. So the holiday becomes somewhat figurative in nature. We celebrate, not the event, but the meaning behind the event; that given unto us this day is a Savior, who is Christ the lord. This is pretty impressive stuff. But heres the truth of it: regardless of whether secularists, heathens and athiests want to irradicate the symbols of that celebration, the stuff behind it still exists. Anyone who wishes to declare a war on Christmas is deluded to the degree believers still believe. If there’s a war on Christmas, folks, then the war is already won by believers. So why fight it? It’s silly because Christmas is already sacrosant, it cannot be assailed. Please keep in mind that for centuries Christians held their faith secretly and dear. If the truth is what you hold to, then there is no reason now, whatsoever, to strike against a false belief. Christmas needs no defense. It is truly a sanctified holiday.
#1, This is the toughy. In order to hold that Christmas is sanctified, one must hold that the belief that makes it such is the one true belief. Is it? Here’s my thing; I don’t care if it is. If you believe that it is, then embrace that. Great, no problem, until … persons like Loofah Lover O’Reilly foment anger that this belief must be the belief held by all, and demand that others hold it to such a lofty ideal. Many others don’t, nor will they. The point that continually seems to get missed is that Christians shouldn’t give a flip if others accept their beliefs. No one, and I mean no one, should be able to prevent them from holding the things dear that they hold dear … and yet, there is a strong interest in establishing the Christmas belief (the one true belief) as the only belief that can be accepted in this holiday season. How screwed up is that? Pretty dreadful, actually. That is precisely the establishment of a nationally mandated belief that our Constituition prevents. Don’t be doin’ that. It’s wrong.
No one can take Christmas away from you, or me, or anyone. Christmas is what it is, to all who participate. It might be Hannakuh, it might be Kwaanza, it might be trees and presents. Really, why should you care if your belief is strong?
Hmmm, maybe because some things (in a society that doesn’t accept state religion) are stronger then others.
10 Responses to “Thoughts on Sanctity”
By Jeff on Dec 9, 2005 | Reply
Just to mention one curiousity: it confuses me that this “war on Christmas” seems to be focused on businesses saying “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas.” I don’t think rampant commercialism (and materialism) is a part of Christmas that Christians believe is sacred or spirtually meaningful to them. If there were a war on Christmas here, it seems like it should be welcomed by Christians as it’s separating the secular materialism from the religious meaning of the holiday.
Then again, I don’t think there’s Christmas without the commercialism, but that’s another topic.
By Chad on Dec 9, 2005 | Reply
Humbug. Bah! Humbug!!
Humbug I tell you all, HUM-BUG!!
*shakes fist*
By Craig on Dec 10, 2005 | Reply
Remember that I am arguing from the POV that folks on both sides of this issue really just need to find something more important to worry about.
Outside of Bill O’Reilly’s world, I think that the perception of a “War on Christmas” isn’t stemming necessarily from retailers, but from the professionally offended who seem to be trying to eradicate any sign or symbol of Christmas.
There’s a town in Florida that has a menorah, but is balking at a natvity scene.
To me, it’s silly to pretend that the days around December 25th aren’t Christmas, and I thought this way even when I was an atheist.
Spending a few days thinking on “peace on earth and goodwill toward men” isn’t a bad thing.
By BIRDZILLA on Dec 10, 2005 | Reply
The grinch could have gone to the ACLU and the 9th curcut court and he would have ended christmas through these two evil entities without bothering to break into the houses of the whos
By Jeff on Dec 10, 2005 | Reply
“Outside of Bill O’Reilly’s world, I think that the perception of a “War on Christmas†isn’t stemming necessarily from retailers, but from the professionally offended who seem to be trying to eradicate any sign or symbol of Christmas.
There’s a town in Florida that has a menorah, but is balking at a natvity scene.”
But see, I don’t understand how that’s trying to eradicate any sign of Christmas. First off, at most you have a handful of incidents. This isn’t anything widespread. Second, the Florida example is a misguided attempt (based on a poor reading of a Supreme Court decision) at separating church and state. Even if you don’t agree with that ideal, certainly you realize that the vast majority of symbols of Christmas are put up by private businesses and citizens. Many places have their entire town blanketed with Christmas decorations (which, just to point out, I love), yet people are perceiving a war because they aren’t allowed to put some of that on the lawn of city hall or because they can’t have a school Christmas party (neither of which I agree with)? I find it completely bizarre.
“To me, it’s silly to pretend that the days around December 25th aren’t Christmas, and I thought this way even when I was an atheist.”
Of course it is, but I don’t think that’s happening. Saying happy holidays seems aimed at inclusiveness, not at trying to play down Christmas.
By Chad on Dec 10, 2005 | Reply
Well, I was trying to leaven the situation with the bah humbug routine, but clearly that fell flat.
(Heh, leaven, fell flat, heh — oh never mind.)
Anyway here are my two cents on the issue. And these are the only ones I’m giving because I’m cheap this year.
I’m an atheist (sort of) and a Democrat (sort of) and I have to say first that the Christians are making a damned good point. It isn’t “a few incidents” as Jeff claims, it is all over the place that the liberalish end of America is trying to both argue that we need more public tolerance of other religions and their holiday traditions, many of whom happen to coincide with the Northern Hemisphere’s winter. Now, this does not mean that the same groups of people are arguing for both. There are enough liberal busybodies in the nation to account for both the tolerance of other faith movement and the abolish public displays of faith movement. And when the two get contrasted together, Democrats and liberals take the backlash for both simultaneously. It would be interesting to study the amount of overlap between the two movements. I expect that it’s some, but not much.
We don’t hear about the same incidents year after year. This year for example, the Seattle NPR station, KUOW is offering tickets to a play in which a woman discovers her way out of the influence of the church. The play is five months hence, but it’s being advertised now to take advantage of holiday shopping. The guy who voiced the spot even allowed for this dichotomy between holidays and atheism with the tagline, “Give Godlessness for the Holidays!”
I don’t think it’s wrong for a Christian to find that somewhat offensive. How would it play in Peoriastan if someone advertised, “Give Allahlessness for Ramadan!”. How about giving G-dlessness for Channukah to a Jew? Would you do that? I don’t expect you would. Why is it okay to do it to a Christian?
Fox and O’Reilly may be leading a charge on the whole Christmas front, and that’s fine. Frankly, the Christians have been really good about seeing public display after public display after public display vetoed and banned. Banning nativity scenes has gotten so commonplace that it hardly makes the news.
I don’t mind a nativity scene, but I think that a citizen of any town that has one should be able to request recognition for their holy symbols at their holy time too. That just makes sense. Christmas trees are Christmas trees, they’re not holiday trees for fuck’s sake.
And just to open a whole new can of worms, it seems to me that a sizeable amount of the tolerance of other faith folks also tend to be the ‘Christmas is too commercial’ people too. The next time I run into one of these people I’m going to point out that the Hindi holiday of Diwali is all about purchasing valuable items too. The difference (so far as I know anyway) is that in Diwali, you don’t give them away. And you worship Lakhsmi, the goddess of wealth!
Christmas is commercial. Well, duh! How fucking obivious is that, anyway? It needs to be commercial or there’d be no giving — unless you have the time to knit a whole assload of sweaters. After you spun your own yarn from the wool you’ve shorn from your sheep, that is, since it would be just too dreadful to actually pay money for any of that.
Bah, humbug.
By Jeff on Dec 10, 2005 | Reply
“It isn’t “a few incidents†as Jeff claims, it is all over the place that the liberalish end of America is trying to both argue that we need more public tolerance of other religions and their holiday traditions, many of whom happen to coincide with the Northern Hemisphere’s winter.”
Arguing for public tolerance is not what I had in mind. I mean stupid incidents like prohibiting state government workers from saying Merry Christmas or the incident Craig mentioned in Florida. Incidents that can be seen as a bias against Christianity. Those are rare.
I’m not one of the commericialism people you’re talking about, but the fact that giving entails some commercialism doesn’t mean there isn’t too much. Shopping center stampedes are not necessary for Christmas giving.
By Craig on Dec 10, 2005 | Reply
That’s a pretty good rant, Chad. You should start a blog.
By Harley D on Dec 10, 2005 | Reply
Two points - Christmas is a borrowed pagan holiday - it is not unusual at all for a new religion to build on the feasts of the one it is replacing. That’s not all Christianity borrowed - seems there was something in Egyptian mythology about a virgin giving birth too. Isis I think was her name. Borrowing going on all the time!
And my god this persecution complex these Christians have! There has been alot of persecuting going on over the centuries, but most of it has been the Church and believers getting after nonbelievers. In fact, masonry was born of a need for agnostics and atheists to have a place to profess their nonbelief without being burned at the stake.
Anyway, Christians are just flexing their muscles now, pushing it down our collective throats. They’ll wear out their welcome, but not soon enough for my taste.
By tajlund on Dec 12, 2005 | Reply
One thing I am happy to see is the quality of the comments on this and my posting. You guys should really be proud of yourselves, with only a couple of exceptions you have proven yourselves to be highly intelligent and decent people. Even the exceptions were intelligent, though a bit snarky.
Honestly, I don’t really have much of an opinion on this issue. I write what I’m asked to write by the paper, even if the topic isn’t of much interest to me. I was briefly sniped at by someone who criticized my approach (wall of seperation), but for a practicingpractical agnostic I really find it hard to generate much heat about this. But it is telling to me that even I am able to see that something is going on this year. The debate seems a lot hotter.
So once again thank you for your comments. (The Treaty of Tripoli was a very well thought argument).