The reason for season?
I'll be honest ... I've never been one prone to feeling sympathies for those who desire to blur the lines of the separation of church and state - or those who have a belief that such a separation simply doesn't exist. I respect the fact we have such definitive lines between the two entities, and I think such a division is good and healthy for both of them.
Along those lines, we have one of the most bizarre and unusual disputes in recent memory concerning the use of the phrase "Merry Christmas" by corporations and by local, state and federal governments ... culminating with the furor over President Bush's card which included the phrase 'Happy Holidays' rather than wishes for a 'Merry Christmas.' It's been touched upon by folks here in the Athenian blogosphere like Athens Politics and by Eponymous (here and here).
So, I suppose I'll wade in ...
I don't get it.
And I mean that to both sides ... I don't get it.
On one hand, you've got elements of the Religious Right acting as if Christianity has been outlawed merely because the president decided to use a different phrase to express his best wishes.
This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture.
— William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
He claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn't act like one. I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it.
— Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com
I can't wrap my mind around such simplistic and narrow-minded thinking ... and I say this as someone who, at times, can possibly be considering a Bible-thumpin' Christian. Is your faith so shallow that because someone wishes you 'Happy Holidays' rather than 'Merry Christmas' you become convinced that Christmas is being erased from our society?
There is no war on Christmas, as Donohue was claiming last night on Scarborough Country (why I was watching that, I really can't begin to tell you ... flipping channels, got hooked I guess). I still went out and bought my Christmas tree, made plans with my family and friends to celebrate the holiday, and gone to church to see the candles be lit on the Advent wreaths. No one has come to my house and forbidden me from observing the birth of Jesus. That, my friend, would be a war on Christmas.
This is absolutely nothing but a political ploy to energize a fractured and disenchanted conservative base employed by a handful of vocal organizations. It's stirring a pot which doesn't even need a spoon in it (Donohue, by the by, offered one of the most classic 'faulty reasoning' lines I've ever heard when he claimed that wishing 'Merry Christmas' to Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians was actually an exercise in tolerance for their faiths because not wishing them 'Merry Christmas' revealed religious bigotry on the part of liberals ... high comedy).
On the other hand, I've had about enough of individuals who bristle when they even hear the mention of the phrase 'Christmas' ... and these complaints typically come from the left. If someone wishes you a 'Merry Christmas' it probably isn't because they have some ulterior motive to drag you away to their Jim Jones compound ... rather they are merely extending you a courteous greetings during this holiday season. It isn't malicious or underhanded or done to infuriate you, but done in a sense of goodwill.
There's no need for a boycott or a lawsuit if a department store holds a 'Christmas sale' rather than a 'Holiday sale' or if a reference to the Christmas season appears somewhere in the store. The overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and this is merely marketing to them. If anything, the real 'war' over Christmas should probably not come from the removal of it from the public realm, but rather the over-commercialization of the holiday.
As for all this talk of it not being a real holiday but rather one designed to align with the winter solistice ... who cares? Blame the early members of the church in Rome for nothing less than excellent marketing by meshing an observed Christian holy day with a popular festival so folks would not only grow more familiar with it, but also not forget it. Christians around the world celebrate Christmas because they remember the birth of Christ, and the symbols and rituals and practices they use to do so have roots dating back to both the early stages of the Christian church and the pagan ceremonies and festivals of Rome (and other native cultures). So what if the Christmas tree has roots in the winter solistice? It's a symbol the reminds me of the Christian aspects of the season.
This entire thing is one of the most nonsensical disputes I've seen in a while. So fight all you want about it, and I'm going to do my best to enjoy the season.
Along those lines, we have one of the most bizarre and unusual disputes in recent memory concerning the use of the phrase "Merry Christmas" by corporations and by local, state and federal governments ... culminating with the furor over President Bush's card which included the phrase 'Happy Holidays' rather than wishes for a 'Merry Christmas.' It's been touched upon by folks here in the Athenian blogosphere like Athens Politics and by Eponymous (here and here).
So, I suppose I'll wade in ...
I don't get it.
And I mean that to both sides ... I don't get it.
On one hand, you've got elements of the Religious Right acting as if Christianity has been outlawed merely because the president decided to use a different phrase to express his best wishes.
This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture.
— William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
He claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn't act like one. I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it.
— Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com
I can't wrap my mind around such simplistic and narrow-minded thinking ... and I say this as someone who, at times, can possibly be considering a Bible-thumpin' Christian. Is your faith so shallow that because someone wishes you 'Happy Holidays' rather than 'Merry Christmas' you become convinced that Christmas is being erased from our society?
There is no war on Christmas, as Donohue was claiming last night on Scarborough Country (why I was watching that, I really can't begin to tell you ... flipping channels, got hooked I guess). I still went out and bought my Christmas tree, made plans with my family and friends to celebrate the holiday, and gone to church to see the candles be lit on the Advent wreaths. No one has come to my house and forbidden me from observing the birth of Jesus. That, my friend, would be a war on Christmas.
This is absolutely nothing but a political ploy to energize a fractured and disenchanted conservative base employed by a handful of vocal organizations. It's stirring a pot which doesn't even need a spoon in it (Donohue, by the by, offered one of the most classic 'faulty reasoning' lines I've ever heard when he claimed that wishing 'Merry Christmas' to Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians was actually an exercise in tolerance for their faiths because not wishing them 'Merry Christmas' revealed religious bigotry on the part of liberals ... high comedy).
On the other hand, I've had about enough of individuals who bristle when they even hear the mention of the phrase 'Christmas' ... and these complaints typically come from the left. If someone wishes you a 'Merry Christmas' it probably isn't because they have some ulterior motive to drag you away to their Jim Jones compound ... rather they are merely extending you a courteous greetings during this holiday season. It isn't malicious or underhanded or done to infuriate you, but done in a sense of goodwill.
There's no need for a boycott or a lawsuit if a department store holds a 'Christmas sale' rather than a 'Holiday sale' or if a reference to the Christmas season appears somewhere in the store. The overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and this is merely marketing to them. If anything, the real 'war' over Christmas should probably not come from the removal of it from the public realm, but rather the over-commercialization of the holiday.
As for all this talk of it not being a real holiday but rather one designed to align with the winter solistice ... who cares? Blame the early members of the church in Rome for nothing less than excellent marketing by meshing an observed Christian holy day with a popular festival so folks would not only grow more familiar with it, but also not forget it. Christians around the world celebrate Christmas because they remember the birth of Christ, and the symbols and rituals and practices they use to do so have roots dating back to both the early stages of the Christian church and the pagan ceremonies and festivals of Rome (and other native cultures). So what if the Christmas tree has roots in the winter solistice? It's a symbol the reminds me of the Christian aspects of the season.
This entire thing is one of the most nonsensical disputes I've seen in a while. So fight all you want about it, and I'm going to do my best to enjoy the season.
posted by Jmac at 11:59 AM
18 Comments:
Maybe I can shed a little more light on what might be motivating the conservative call to battle here:
Cultures are always liturgical. We are (we become) what we worship. This means, among other things, that symbols are important. Western Christendom is a real civilization, and so is the Enlightenment culture of pluralistic secularism. One civilization tries to conquer another. And when the conquest begins, one of the first things to be attacked are usually the symbols. It is a very meaningful way to start the battle (Afterall, this is precisely what the Christian Church did to the pagan winter solstice; it took it's symbols and reinvested them with Christian meaning, giving us Christmas. And I see no problem with this; Christian civilization was marching on.), and it is also very effective. Because there are usually a good number of people around (in any civilization) who will not object too loudly when it only seems like the symbols are under attack. "Oh, you just don't want everything to be about 'Christmas' out in public. But I can still 'do Christmas' in my own house/heart. That's fine, I guess."
And the trench moves half a mile forward (or backward, depending on your perspective).
Not that I'm a 'conspiracy theorist,' mind you.
Or, another way of putting the concern is with this question:
When will American public life cross the line from simply "not emphasizing Christmas" to "attacking Christmas." Is there any point at which you, Jmac, would want to dig in your heels and fight for a cultural recognition of Christian symbolism and celebration, or are you personally content to let Christian culture recede all the way into the private chambers of churches and individual hearts?
Good post, Jmac. I think this issue is pretty stupid, to be honest. Personally, I think it's more appropriate for stores, etc. - and certainly government entities (hence the president's card) because government should never endorse or condemn any particular religion (that's separation of church and state for you) - to say "happy holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." But I'm not going to get all weird about it if stores have "Christmas sales" or someone says "Merry Christmas" to me. Most people say that with good intentions and give the matter no more thought. And that is fine. The bluster on both sides is kind of weird. I gotta point out, though, that I definitely see more bluster coming from the "conservative" side.
And why did they decide to get their panties in a wad now? It's just like you said - it's a political move. There have been "happy holidays" and "season's greeting" cards, etc. ever since I was a kid, and before. I mean, one phrase does get repetitive after a while - it's good to have synonyms/alternatives. Plus, as Jon Stewart pointed out on the Daily Show the other night (in his awesome response to Bill O'Reilly) - Christmas and New Year's are very close to each other, so there are two holidays celebrated very close to one another. Hence, plural!
Is there any point at which you, Jmac, would want to dig in your heels and fight for a cultural recognition of Christian symbolism and celebration, or are you personally content to let Christian culture recede all the way into the private chambers of churches and individual hearts?
Honestly, I don't really know. I suppose if the U.S. government took an action as the French government did recently by banning the wearing of Christian crosses or the Star of David or crescent moons or covering one's head, then yes I would dig my proverbial heels in and voice my disapproval.
To me, this whole thing - equally on both sides - sounds like political correctness run amok. So I guess I don't really subscribe to the 'conspiracy theory' argument you pose. Primarily because I don't see any evidence of a 'war on Christmas' and do think that much of the bluster - again, from both sides - is merely a political ploy designed to stir the pot.
I believe in the power of the Gospel to change the world, but I don't think mandating that we Christians forcibly wish everyone a 'Merry Christmas' falls into the same category.
Thanks Amber for your comments. I would offer one minor disagreement with you in that, again, I don't really care what President Bush on his card. Had he actually put 'Merry Christmas' on his card, I don't think it would have been that big of a deal either. I don't think that's as much of an endorsement of any particular religion, but rather an acknowledgement of the primary holiday celebrated this time of the year.
As I mentioned in my original posting, much of Christmas is so overcommercialized now with images of Santa and Frosty the Snowman with little mention of Christ or Christianity, that for many individuals it's become more of a secular holiday.
Naturally, being a Christian, I think that's a shame. And that's what partially bothers me about some of the rhetoric coming from folks like William Donohue, who came across like he merely wanted images of Christmas trees and folks to say 'Merry Christmas' to each other, thus playing into the overcommercialization, rather than actually recognize the story of Christ's birth.
It sort of seems like those folks would take the secularized Christmas rather than the Christian Christmas just so they could say they 'won.' And that terribly misses the point.
DISCLAIMER - By the by, I'm not denouncing Christmas trees or Santa or anything, I'm just making a point I suppose. We actually have a gigantic eight-foot tree, along with numerous Santa-like decorations at our homestead.
On a different note ... did I use the word 'ulterior' wrongly in this sentence:
If someone wishes you a 'Merry Christmas' it probably isn't because they have some ulterior motive to drag you away to their Jim Jones compound ...
Doesn't seem right.
What about the recent ACLU thing fighting the display of a small cross on the Los Angeles city seal? Am I supposed to believe that this is a matter of separation of church and state? See, if liberals had any idea what separation of church and state actually meant, then conservatives probably wouldn't have to fight many of these silly battles. The current battle doesn't really fit in this mold though; it was started by conservatives against someone who is seen as a conservative. It is a matter of a perceived betrayal or capitulation rather than an attack from without.
Anyway, Christmas seems largely exempt from the crusades of areligious liberals. I hear all the time how Christmas is now a secular holiday (which is nonsense; what secular occasion is Christmas supposed to commemorate?). I think all the presents are clouding people's brains.
What I really want to know: if conservatives are all bent out of shape about this, where was the outrage when Bush started going on about Christians and Muslims worshipping the same god? Conservatives would be easier to support if they actually had more sense than the liberals they oppose.
puostmxs -- I hate these verification things.
I hear all the time how Christmas is now a secular holiday (which is nonsense; what secular occasion is Christmas supposed to commemorate?). I think all the presents are clouding people's brains.
Well, that's what I'm sort of getting at. There are many, many individuals who are non-Christians - and not members of other faiths - who do celebrate Christmas, but focus almost exclusively on the non-Christian aspects of the holiday. So that's what I mean by the secularization of Christmas.
Ask most kids these days about Christmas, and I think you'd get a 50-50 split with some saying 'It's Jesus' birthday' and the remaining folks saying 'It's when Santa brings me presents.'
What about the recent ACLU thing fighting the display of a small cross on the Los Angeles city seal? Am I supposed to believe that this is a matter of separation of church and state?
Well, if it is on the government's seal, then yes the ACLU is fighting it over separation of church and state. I'm fine with it remaining for historical reasons, considering Los Angeles, like many other California cities, have strong roots in mission towns so I would argue the seal is not so much an endorsement of Christianity, but rather a recognition of the history of the city.
What about the recent ACLU thing fighting the display of a small cross on the Los Angeles city seal?
Before you go all anti-ACLU on our asses, I'd like to remind you that the ACLU has defended Christians on many occasions (those links are just 3 out of numerous examples). They're not anti-Christian, y'know; they're anti-restriction of free speech and infringment on other's rights.
if conservatives are all bent out of shape about this, where was the outrage when Bush started going on about Christians and Muslims worshipping the same god?
I don't understand what you're talking about here - how is this relevant? And anyway, as I'm sure you know, Christians and Muslims do worship the same god. Jews too, for that matter. (Of course the Jews and the Muslims don't believe Jesus to the the son of God, nor do they believe in the Trinity (which has always seemed like a weird and convoluted concept to me - but I digress) but that's neither here nor there.)
I'm fine with it remaining for historical reasons, considering Los Angeles, like many other California cities, have strong roots in mission towns so I would argue the seal is not so much an endorsement of Christianity, but rather a recognition of the history of the city.
I would almost agree with you on that, Jmac - but not so much. It's like the people who argue that the stars and bars should remain on the Georgia flag for "historical reasons." I call bullshit.
You know what else is bullshit? The fact that Blogspot doesn't allow the <blockquote> tag in comments. Boo!
And anyway, as I'm sure you know, Christians and Muslims do worship the same god. Jews too, for that matter.
Without getting into a deep theological discussion, this statement is wholly incorrect.
From a standpoint of secular historical study, one can conclude the God worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims is the 'same' because such a study would give the impression that Christianity grew out of the Jewish faith, while Islam grew out of the Christian faith.
This, however, fails to see much larger forces at work in both the historical and theological sense. From a Jewish perspective, one would see the God worshipped by Christians as different seeing how that God is, as you stated earlier, both the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Likewise, Christians disagree with the notion of Allah being the 'same' as God because of that faith's belief that Christ wasn't the Son of God and that Mohammed was the supreme prophet.
The faiths all may share some stories and some elements, but it's not accurate to simply say they all worship the same God.
I suppose Matt was making a point about religious conservatives being up in arm over something as simple as 'Happy Holidays' but showed little teeth when President Bush was making a statement they would more than likely have strong disagreements with. Again, I think the reasoning is purely political.
Bush made the latter statement prior to the 2004 election and when unifed conservative support was critical. He's won a second term and has been saddled with an unpopular war and stagnant legislative agenda. They've squeezed the blood out of the turnip, so they can cut their losses now and criticize him with no recourse.
if you don't think Jews, Muslims, and Christians all worship the same G-d then you need to do some studying on the history of these religions - they are called the "Abrahamic" religions for a valid historical and theological reason.
FYI - Making a comment like "Islam grew out of Christianity" was my first clue that you had no idea what you were talking about.
what secular occasion is Christmas supposed to commemorate?
How about the winter solstice, dude?
All of this is ridiculous. Have decided forcibly to wish everyone a happy sparkle season.
if you don't think Jews, Muslims, and Christians all worship the same G-d then you need to do some studying on the history of these religions - they are called the "Abrahamic" religions for a valid historical and theological reason.
FYI - Making a comment like "Islam grew out of Christianity" was my first clue that you had no idea what you were talking about.
FYI - Making an inane posting with absolutely no argument or evidence defending your views, as well posting anonymously (for which I have little to no respect for) was my first clue you had little character or ability for rational thought.
You criticize me from two completely different angles, and both miss the mark. On one hand, you say I'm wrong for suggesting that the God of Christianity and the Allah of Islam are not the same, but on the other one you claim I don't know what I'm talking about because I make a statement linking the three, albeit a simple and naive one.
Which is it?
For clarity's sake, there are distinct differences between the roots and beliefs of those three religions. I'm not disputing the surface similarities - I didn't in my last comment nor am I here - between the three religions, but I'm merely saying that if you ask a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim you'd get an answer that says their God is different than the other ones ... and there are theological, spiritual and historical reasons for that. I don't have a lot of them at my fingertips right now, but can dig some up if you're so inclined.
Several further observations about all this, not necessarily related (or unrelated) to what has gone before:
1. The last time a president put "Merry Christmas" on his Christmas cards was Bush the First, in 1992. It's not as though W suddenly stopped using "Christmas" this year. I definitely agree that the conservatives are being a little silly for getting upset at this particular "offense" right now.
2. JMac, many religious conservatives did denounce Bush's religious mish-mashing back when it occurred. It didn't go unnoticed, or unminded.
3. Anonymous, the reason I say that Bush's statements are indeed "mish-mashing" is because, considered in terms that most serious adherents of the various religions would themselves accept, the Muslim notion of Allah and the Christian notion of God are so different as to render them, well...different. Of course, in the historical sense that both Christianity and Islam claim to be following the "God of Abraham", we can speak of a similarity. But the three religions (or at least Islam and Christianity) define that "God of Abraham" in such different ways that they cannot agree on what he is actually like or on how he actually wants us to live or on how we can be "right" in his eyes or whether or not a certain person (Jesus) is that God, etc. To say "it's the same God, just different understandings of who He is," as though that difference doesn't make all the difference, is patronizing to both Muslims and Christians.
But, yes, certainly as a historical matter, we can connect the three "western monotheistic" religions under a fairly similar notion of the deity. But the faithful of the various faiths (as well as the God to whom they are faithful, if He exists as they think He does) is not much affected by such taxonomies done in comp. religion college courses.
4. Surely it is possible to object to one aspect of an organization's legal philosophy while accepting (or even embracing) another. The ACLU certainly has come to the defense of individual Christians on several occasions. This is not the objection conservatives have to the ACLU; they object to the ACLU's attack on any and all Christian (or Judeo-Christian) symbols and expressions in public places, as though the mere presence of such things represents a violation of the sacrosanct "separtion of church and state." This is an absurd (historically and politically) rendering of the separation (notice that I did not say that all notions of separation are absurd), which is what I think Matt was getting at. I don't know how much more we want to go into this particular topic, though.
5. Somewhat related to (4), why do you call bullshit on JMac's historical justification of the cross appearing on LA city seal? Are you disagreeing with him "on the facts," denying that the (Spanish) missional history of California is indeed relevant and appropriate to a city seal for Los Angeles (city of what? Who approved that?)? Or, perhaps, are you disagreeing with the very idea of a historical justification for public religious symbolism at all--you are denying that it is ever appropriate to put religious symbolism on public stuff, even if that symbolism is a legitimate part of the historical background of the place in question.
If this latter is your objection, then what is the problem that you see with such historcially-rooted displays? Are you calling "bullshit" because you think that the people who use such historical symbols don't really care about the history, but are simply using it as a pretext to "force their religion" on others? (I am assuming this is your position, given your "stars and bars" analogy). Are we back to conspiracy theories again?
6. Epon, I'm really not a conspiracy theorist. It is possible, though, to be accused of such simply for connecting some fairly obvious dots. If I say that the U.S. steel industry is a big supporter of tarrifs on steel imports because it is to their economic advantage (at least in the short (sighted) term), that's not really a conspiracy theory on my part. I'm just 'following the money.' Though it might look like I'm getting a little "out there," since it's not like the U.S. steel industry comes out and says openly that they want tarrifs so they can make more money. But we all know what's really going on, right?
However, I'd note something about even this limited sort of "connecting of the dots" that I like to do. One, and this is most important, it is not even necessary for the people involved to be conscious of what they are doing. Hence, when I wonder about American public life "attacking Christmas", I'm not claiming that a bunch of leftists sat around in a (chat?) room somewhere over cigars (tofurkey sandwiches?) and hatched a nefarious plot to "undo" Christmas. Rather, there are a lot of different people pursuing their own political/ideological ends. Some think Christianity is just part of our history, and it's okay to recognize it as such. Some think Christianity should be part of our cultural-political now, not just the past. Some don't want Christianity (or religion in general) to have much sway in our public life at all. And lots of in-betweens.
In certain circumstances, certain people manage to be louder or more influential than others. In our current climate, for example, the ACLU tends to win its suits to get religious symbols and expressions taken down out of public places. Just one example. I don't think of all this as a "conspiracy", as though the whole country is out to get Christianity. But I am smart enough to realize that secularism has an agenda, just like other ideologies, and that it's not just an accident when it wins some battles.
I don't know what the ACLU's track record with regards to individual religious expression has to do with either the LA case in particular, or their track record with regards to separation of church and state in general. At any rate, the case is patently absurd. If a tiny cross on a county seal violates the establishment clause, then surely the very name Los Angeles does as well, since it means the angels. Not to mention Sans Francisco, Diego, and Antonio, along with various towns named Trinity. And has anyone read the Declaration of Independence? That thing practically endorses theocracy! It's all so bogus.
Speaking of bogusness; Christians and Muslims worship the same God? Even a superficial analysis of the two religions will uncover major differences in nearly everything pertaining to their respective gods. As compelling as anonymous's argument is (dude, they're both Abrahamic, get it?), I don't think so.
As for what separation of church and state really means, if there is no coercion into a specific church, then there is not an established religion. If the government sent 10% of all tax revenues to Rome, or the SBC, then there would be an established religion. If the government says that god exists, a religion has not been established. Unless something is required and there are negative consequences for resisting, church and state are separate.
I don't think this happy holidays thing is a matter of a persecution complex. More like a matter of bush not being a real christian or something and selling out on his base. I do agree that the religious right tends to have a persecution complex though.
Finally, if you want Christmas to stop being commercialized, a good first step might be to stop celebrating it as a gift-getting holiday.
I'd like to say one thing about the "commercialization of Christmas" thing. The complaints about this have been ubiquitous for as long as the major economies in 'Christian' nations have been at the point where such an extended and intense shopping season is possible. If people want to talk about cliches and perpetual arguments, then the "Christmas isn't supposed to be about presents!" argument is a good one.
Although actually it's not really an "argument," so much as a unilateral rhetorical ploy meant to give people a guilt complex. There's no argument; when the pastor (in every church throughout the country, liberal or conservative or emergent or whatever) stands up and reminds us all what a shame it is that the holiday has become so commercialized, nobody bickers or stands up after the service and disagrees. We all nod our heads solemnly and lament what grubby shopmongers we have become.
This is not to say that I don't agree with the over-commercialization criticism, because I do, to an extent. I especially loathe the various "trinkets" and Hallmark cards and Lifetime (and Hallmark) inspirational movies that are so inescapable during this time of year. And obviously there is a danger within human nature to get so excited with the anticipation of receiving a nice gift that you overlook the "reason for the season." (shudder)
But this particular problem I just mentioned, is limited mostly to children, who don't shell out nearly as much money on the gifts they give as their loved ones spend on the presents to them. Kids (upper-lower class and up) eally are "making money" when Christmas rolls around. It can be hard to get the little ones to focus on the Incarnation when they are oh so excited to open the Xbox in a few days.
Although, still there is something missing in this analysis. When I used to know that my birthday was coming up, I didn't get nearly as out-of-my-mind excited in anticipation. Even though I knew that I would be receiving gifts, and was giving nothing in return. There is a particular "joviality" about the Christmas season. And this joviality, I suspect, has been cultivated through centuries of (largely Christian) effort.
Again, so I'm not misunderstood: if I see someone who is just obsessed with getting lots and lots and lots of presents, then I wince. But I have also gotten to the point where I wince when I hear the old "commercialization" charge.
We live in a materially-wealthy nation. People have a good amount of disposable income. We have also set aside a holiday that is meant to celebrate the astounding absurdity of a world which is fallen into sin and death but which God has nonetheless seen fit to redeem by uniting Himself to it in the Incarnation. The joys of this absurdity are simply immense, and we are surrounded again each year by a new world, a world full of joyful things and joyful people. So we celebrate this great mystery of the Incarnation, that God has become man, and we celebrate our new world by feasting and decorating and exchanging gifts with one another.
Given that all this is the case, is it really any surprise that the Christmas season is the busiest shopping season of the year? Is there something wrong with having a busiest season of the year? If people spent their money more evenly, or also exchanged gifts for 4th of July, would this make us feel better? Or do we not object to the period of heightened consumerism per se, so much as the underlying realities of a culture where consumption takes place at all?
When will American public life cross the line from simply "not emphasizing Christmas" to "attacking Christmas."
Ahem. How about two minutes past never?
Post a Comment
<< Home