'Tis the Season To Be Incredulous: The moral and aesthetic nightmare of Christmas, by Christopher Hitchens (Slate).
... My own wish is more ambitious: to write an anti-Christmas column that becomes fiercer every year while remaining, in essence, the same. The core objection, which I restate every December at about this time, is that for almost a whole month, the United States—a country constitutionally based on a separation between church and state—turns itself into the cultural and commercial equivalent of a one-party state ...
... It takes a totalitarian mind-set to claim that only one Bronze Age Palestinian revelation or prophecy or text can be our guide through this labyrinth. If the totalitarians cannot bear to abandon their adoration of their various Dear Leaders, can they not at least arrange to hold their ceremonies in private? Either that or give up the tax-exempt status that must remind them so painfully of the things of this material world.
23 comments:
Hitchens is indeed ambitious. He endeavors to become a bigger and bigger dick each year and is largely successful. Congratulations to him for wasting such talent on self-congratulation.
Hitchens needs to listen carefully for chains clanging behind him.
While there are some things that I agree on with Hitchens(at least on a base level), he goes so far over the top...
Hitchens ignores something about Christmas. Christmas is, in fact, two separate holidays, one of which requires absolutely no religious belief unless one believes that Santa Claus is a religious concept. Okay, I know, the St. Nicholas thing goes on with this but Santa Claus as we know home and St. Nicholas have little to do with each other.
For Christians Christmas is about the birth of Jesus. We light candles during the season of Advent in expectation and waiting, and celebrate Jesus' birth on Christmas Eve. We sing the hymns, the Christmas Carols, and light candles, and read the narratives in the Bible. And, for many Christians, it is a time when great acts of charity are performed.
There is also the secular Christmas. This is celebrated around Santa Claus, the giving of gifts, "Jingle Bells," and Rudolph and his red nose. We decorate tree and have gifts for the children (and each other), send out cards with letters telling everyone the adventures of the family for the previous year, and Dad blissfully eats the cookies left out for the big guy. (Okay, this is autobiographical.)
Often, other than saying grace at dinner or making a remark about the 'real meaning' of the day, most people celebrate this holiday, Christians and otherwise.
Even for people in the Jewish Tradition, the celebration of Hanukkah which would ordinarily not classify as the highest of Jewish holy days, becomes Christmas-esque with the giving of gifts. And, I daresay, more than one Jewish child believes in Santa Claus.
It is one day a year, one day, when the country seems to put out the 'closed' sign on virtually every store and restaurant, and people stay home and either enjoy their families or, if noting else, relax.
Except Christopher Hitchens who every year has to bellyache.
My suggestion to Hitchens is this. Open a restaurant and defy the odds and serve Christmas Dinner and make a lot of money for the people who want to go out for Christmas Dinner and not eat Asian food. Have a gift shop for the truly last minute gifts, and cynically delight in taking advantage of the people who are celebrating one of these holidays.
Actually, I agree with Bluegill about Hitchens.
My sense is this. Hitchens probably asked Santa Claus for the Red Ryder BB gun and he didn't get it and the words he heard are still ringing in his ear:
"You'll shoot your eye out kid!"
"The core objection, which I restate every December at about this time, is that for almost a whole month, the United States—a country constitutionally based on a separation between church and state—turns itself into the cultural and commercial equivalent of a one-party state ..."
Please, somebody, anybody, point out to me where in the constitution it says church is to remain free of state? The constitution I studied in school teaches a freedom of religion, not a freedom from it. I don't believe religion should ever be the sole basis for government, but I think separation of church and state is one of the most misused statements, ever.
I intend this very, very gently.
It's easy for someone who is a member of the majority (in this case, a Christian in the US) to be unable to understand why freedom "from" religion is desirable.
I've asked this question often: Indiana prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages on Christmas Day -- why?
From this pagan's jaundiced perspective, it's clearly because of a Christian (read: majority) holiday occurring on that very same day.
Granted, it's a minor example. But why shouldn't I be able to be free from that religion-based law?
Another thing the majority doesn't get is that the separation of church and state is in its interest, too. Separation of church and state protects the religious beliefs of all, even if a minority, at the exceedingly cheap price of restricting proslytizing (sic) to a mild degree. The majority tends to ignore the fact that what is benign to them (virtual state sanction of a specific religious celebration) is invasive to the dissenting minority.
As an atheist, I have no desire to take away anyone's freedom to worship ... until that freedom is construed as the "right" to legislate my being. Worship as you please ... and stay off my porch.
I gotta work now. Later.
I agree with you. When you start legislating Christianity it usually doesn't work well. I also think it's difficult to be a true Christian and a true patriot, for some. Because our country teaches freedom for all and tolerance. That doesn't always jive with a religious perspective.
My beef is that the Constitution does not guarantee a separation. So if someone disagrees with a religious platform in politics because of their views, that's fine by me. But don't say the Constitution guarantees it. It's just not the case.
I and millions of others (including many Christians) completely disagree with you regarding the Constitution, Daniel S., but in this particular case it doesn't matter.
Hitchens is no more arguing for the separation of church and state than Peggy DeKay typically does, which is to say he isn't at all.
Daniel, you do realize that the Constitution "says" and "guarantees" what 200+ years of Supreme Court and applicable federal court opinions interpret it to say and guarantee? It's a minor point worth repeating.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
To me, that says Congress shall not establish a national religion, nor should they. it's a bad idea. The problem with the Supreme Court is they base their decisions on legal precedence instead of what the Constitution really said. As an American, you should be free from having to worship if you choose not too. Having Merry Christmas on a sign at City Hall doesn't force you to do anything. Hearing a prayer at school doesn't force you to believe it. If someone forces you to say a prayer, then I have a problem with that. But nine times out of 10, these cases have nothing to do with someone being forced to do something.
Hitchens says the country was formed on a separation of church and state. He's right. Pilgrims came here to worship freely, which they weren't allowed to do in England. This country, however, was not founded on suppressing religion. The same argument against religion can be used against anything. Hey, why do I have to wear clothes? That offends me. Why do they have to say the pledge at a council meeting? That offends me. On and on and on. do you think that's what the original intent of the Constitution was?
IF we remove the relegious aspects of this time of year, we still can celebrate the joys of being surrounded by friends and family. To come together from great distances, and relive traditions that take us back to our childhood, and memories of those who have passed on.
While usually marginally grinch like for this season, I find myself changing that tune after a serious and dreaded complication following what should have been a simple surgical procedure. Which now makes every moment with my family and friends that much more important.
If, for only one part of the year, we can come together, and increase the level of happiness, friendship, a spirit of giving and sharing, and have a couple of brief days lost from all the anger, hatred, and political turmoil that drowns the rest of the year, then so be it.
Why do we have to wear clothes?
Because someone's religious tradition declared our own bodies obscene. It's aimed at women mostly cuz, you know, if they figure out they have sex drives the whole world will go to hell. That, and we terminally feeble men can't possibly be expected to comport ourselves properly anywhere near such wanton temptresses.
Have fun celebrating or complaining about whatever it is that matters to you over the next couple of days, Daniel. And you can even do it with your clothes off while pledging allegiance to the flag as far as I'm concerned.
Same goes for everybody. Just warn me if you're coming to my house. I'm shy.
Daniel - everyone is entitled to an opinion about the Constitution, but, thankfully, that doesn't make it the law.
Daniel S,
I have no idea where you might stand on this issue but I think it is salient to the "what the Constitution says" vs what it means.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
To me, that is pretty clear. You want a gun with no restrictions, join the service. The Supreme Court did not interpret it that way.
Good decision? Bad decision? Most of the strict constructionists that I know, love that the Court "interpreted" this time.
I can hardly think of a way that would be more successful in establising a national religion than through school prayer.
I'm old enough that I still remember school prayer. I never, ever heard a non Christian prayer.
Let me throw another wrench into this topic. I am a Christian and I celebrate Christmas. However, I know that Dec. 25 is not Jesus' birthday. That date is a pagan date that was converged with a solstice holiday and eventually became the time of year we celebrate His birth. Any theologian that studies this type of thing know Jesus was born somtime in the fall, around September or October. To me, the holiday is way too commericialized and falls short of its intended goal.
But you are wrong Brandon. An OPINION issued by the Supreme Court does make it law. We can argue this until we're blue in the face but our country will never have a government separate from religious influence. "One nation under God".
As for a school prayer. I'm not for it being institutionalized because there's no way to be fair about it. As Mr. Manzo stated previously, many religions have different forms of prayer.
But if a kid wants to talk about God in school, if a city clerk wants to hang her merry christmas banner up on a wall in her office, what difference does it make if you don't believe it anyway?
I sat through hours of classes in college and high school learning how we crawled out of a swamp, looked like a monkey and the world started with a big bang. All just theories and many very stupid if you ask me as there's hardly foolproof evidence to support. Many of those theories spit in the face of what I believe, but I didn't cry to my teacher to stop. One of the main reasons I believe the Bible over science is because, and I've said this many times, the Bible hasn't changed in 2,000 years except by people who try to use their own interpretation to excuse their lifestyle(religiously speaking). Science changes every day. One day it's drink this and you'll prevent cancer, the next week it's by drinking that, you probably have given yourself heart disease. The geniuses of Columbus's day said the world was flat.
To me Mark, the Constitution is clear. It says no establishments. If they would have meant more, why wouldn't they have just written it? Why wouldn't they have just written, no one shall mention the name God anywhere on public property? I'm going streaking past Bluegill's house, be back in 10...
Daniel S,
If the Supreme Court "says" it, it is the law. Good, bad, indifferent.
I would have went streaking with you yesterday but since it has "warmed" up today, I'm afraid that I might trip!
That's the funniest thing I've heard all week...
An OPINION issued by the Supreme Court does make it law.
Duh. Read both of my responses together. That's exactly what I said:
Daniel, you do realize that the Constitution "says" and "guarantees" what 200+ years of Supreme Court and applicable federal court opinions interpret it to say and guarantee? It's a minor point worth repeating.
and
Daniel - everyone is entitled to an opinion about the Constitution, but, thankfully, that doesn't make it the law.
My point was that YOUR opinion about the Constitution isn't the law, the Court's is. I'm happy about that.
There are recent cases showing Supreme Court may be forming a different opinion. For example, Michael Newdow's attempt to have the pledge removed from schools in 2004 because of the words under God was overturned. I think the summary statement was "Duh".
My opinion is that as long as someone's belief isn't forcing you to do something, then there's no harm. That seems to be what the courts are getting back to when it comes to this issue. If you read up on the 1940s board of education case that started this whole thing, you will find that judge's opinion has been cited by many to be pretty much wrong.
I take my religion far too seriously to want the government endorsing it. That's where my discussion of the matter ends.
I don't know why I bothered taking two semsters of Constitutional law in lawschool or consulted Professor Chemerinsky's hornbook- I should have just asked Daniel. ;)
Post a Comment