| « Good News and Bad News on Watchmen Film | The Lackluster Friday Random Ten » |
12/20/05
Saving Christmas
Snow is on the ground, the presents are under the tree, and conservative Christians are exploiting a personal, religious holiday for their so-called Culture War: the Christmas season is definitely upon us. This year the self-styled defenders of Christmas are spurred on by reports of businesses and goernment agencies trying to avoid promoting one particular religion during the holiday season.
...
Even if the most outrageous claims are true, the overzealousness of companies in not encouraging a single religious holiday hardly amounts to an attack on individuals' religious expression (unless your faith relies so heavily on Wal-Mart hanging a "Merry Christmas" sign on their premesis, in which case I would argue you have more important issues to deal with). We're talking about the willful expression of corporate entities, which has nothing to do with individuals' right to religious expression. It's ironic that religious leaders who place so much emphasis on personal faith and worship should fight so hard for Wal-Mart and Macy's to spread the Christian message for them.
What irks me most, though, is a complaint I've been hearing my students repeat: the claim that the government is trying to take Christmas (and, by extension, God) out of schools. They hear exaggerated reports from the Christian media and think that public schools are going to stop students from saying "Merry Christmas." I tell them this is a wild distortion of the separation of Church and State. I explain it to them like this:
The U.S. Constitution says that the government may not promote any religion over others. This extends to all agencies and establishments within the government, as well as to government employees, which includes public school teachers. In other words, as a teacher, I cannot use my position in school to promote my religion. Students, on the other hand, are not employed by the state and so are not bound by the law. As private individuals, they can express their religious beliefs freely, both in and out of school.
So the separation of church and state is all about limiting the ability of a government to promote religion and protecting the rights of all individuals to express their beliefs as individuals. I'm sure that Wal-Mart views their employees the same way the government does: when they act as representatives of Wal-Mart, they should not promote their personal religion. Individuals' religious rights are not under attack.
The real complaint conservative Christians have is that the federal government and some businesses are not using their status as powerful organization to promote the observation of Christmas. This became particularly transparent when the House of Representatives recently debated on a bill to protect the symbols of Christmas (does the House pass any real legislation anymore?). When some representatives asked that the bill also protect the symbols of Chanukah and Kwanzaa the bill's sponsor refused.
Why are some Christian leaders fighting so strongly to ensure that only Christmas is promoted by businesses and government? Politics. Gary Ackerman said it best:
There are people around who need an enemy at all times to try to separate us one from the other as Americans in order to advance their own agenda. I do not think we should be playing into their hands. Nobody is attacking Christmas or its symbols.
...
To tell the truth, it is slightly offensive to see people trying to create a war and claiming they are attacked just so that they go on the offense instead of the defense. This is a prefabricated issue that has no merit. Nobody is attacking the symbols of Christmas. Are you objecting to our wanting to be included because the symbols of your religion are more important than the symbols of anybody else's religion in America? Or is it because you think that the symbols of your religion are more official? That is the danger in what we are doing.
Christmas is not being attacked by secularists. Rather, it is being hijacked by conservatives who would use it to further the illusion that Christians are a persecuted minority, rather than the powerful majority they (we?) are. Christmas does need saving, but not from nervous politicians and business CEOs who opt to use the word "Holidays" in their greetings. Christmas needs saving from those who would take a personal celebration of the birth of our Savior and turn it into the primary battle of a Culture War of their own making.
5 comments
Well said. 
Nice post, Kyle and well stated...Many of your points are well taken. I do wonder, though if you would harbor the same feelings towards someone who pressured Wal Mart to offer health benefits or to pay competitive wages. While there is a bit of "much ado about nothing" here, it seems to me that as consumers, Christians are within their rights to make their purchases contingent on certain demands they place on businesses they frequent. Certainly, that's a separate issue from arguing these businesses are persecuting a religion, or attacking religious rights, but if such protests are done simply on the grounds of consumer choice, it seems to me that this is an acceptable response. To be perfectly honest, even as a libertarian, the conscious effort to remove the word Christmas from everything bothers me, and may cause me to alter my purchasing patterns.We can argue the establishment clause another day, but I do think the constitution is often misinterpreted here. Congress is not making a law with regard to an establishment of religion by treating all religions equally. It seems to me that the conscious effort to remain non-religious by government has led them to make laws regarding an establishment of a religion - the religion of non - religion.
But if Wal-Mart and/or the government put up Merry Christmas signs they are treating religions unequally--unless they put up an equal number of Chanukah, Kwanzaa, and Squirrel-worshipping Pagan signs (or whatever). The only way to be neutral towards religion is to not advocate any religion, which is interpreted as advocating no religion.I just want to emphasize that I think the whole argument is rather petty. It doesn't bother me if Wal-Mart wishes people a Merry Christmas. What bothers me are cries of persecution when they choose not to.
I view government's response and Wal Mart's a bit differently. Wal Mart is a private corporation and can wish people a merry whatever they want to...to me, wishing a merry christmas, happy Chanukuh or whatever is just an extension of their marketing philosophy. I think it's a fairer point with government, though even that has been overblown recently (thanks, in part to the ACLU-one of the most discriminatory organizations I'm aware of- not to discount the good they do, which is significant). What is a bit odd, however is how this has become more of an issue in the past 10 years or so...Historically, there wouldn't be a debate-certainly Lowes wouldn't be selling "holiday trees." Calling it Christmas is as much as cultural as a religious phenomenon, and I don't think one should consider that an unequal treatment of religion anymore than the shutting down of a restaurant during daylight hours of Ramadan in the middle east-it's a religious holiday, but its so deeply embedded in a culture that it is nondiscriminatory to celebrate/practice it...that's not to say that cultures shouldn't change over time. but rabid political correctness is every bit (probably more) as distasteful as extricating commonly accepted cultural customs because they have some religious history or connotation.
I agree that businesses who avoid using the word Christmas are being overzealous and a little ridiculous. I'm just saying this is hardly persecution, and people who make a federal issue of it (literally) are being even more ridiculous. 
Comment feed for this post
Recent comments