pooh@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (soggy and hard to light) (12/29/87)
In article <9954@mimsy.UUCP> mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (George Orr) writes: [By the way, folks, "George Orr" is a character's name. I've forgotten the movie it came from, but I recognize it. Charlie Wingate writes:] >Christmas has become, in the last decade, the central focus of a uniquely >American form of intolerant behavior: the sovereign right to take offense. Here Wingate turns an attempt to minimize the prevalence of one religion and remove religious support by the state into a case of oversensitivity, somewhat like hemorrhoids. "If you have your little feelings hurt, it's your fault." >>First, Christmas (and it should be capitalized since it is a proper noun) is >>not just a tradition, it is a religious tradition. Being Jewish by birth I >>don't celebrate that tradition. > >THe first stage of the claim of "Offense!" is the declaration. Here we have >"Christmas is Christian," a claim which seems to be justified by tracing >back through history in a fairly obvious sort of way. But substantial >selective forgetting is involved in this claim, and from the middle ages >there has been a purely secular Christmas tradition in which religion is not >an essential part. And here Wingate totally ignores the fact that people of other religions do not celebrate the same tradition that he does. He claims that if enough people practice something, it's secular--pure numbers turn religion into a law of nature. Read the second sentence again, Charlie. >Listen to an "easy listening" station around this time. A fair number of >the songs (all of which are ostensibly "Christmas music") speak of christmas >enitrely without reference to religion, or for that matter, to the holiday >at all. Listen carefully to "The Christmas Song" and note that it defines >Christmas without reference to Jesus or any of the the other players-- no >manger, no birth, no reference to the religious aspect of the day at ALL. >And lest it be thought that this is a modern abberration, consider such >older carols as "Deck the Halls" and the various wassailing songs. Here Wingate presupposes the following: If it doesn't have "Jesus" stamped on it, it's not religious, no matter who started the custom of singing the song. If it's on the radio, it MUST be secular. If it's a tradition old enough, it MUST be secular. >Secular observation of Christmas Day can in fact be traced by into medieval >times, and the religious hymns and carols which are associated with the day >can to some extent be traced to efforts to rein in the secular side of the >celebration. Meaning: Christians who celebrated Christmas in medieval times thought they were being secular too, forgetting about the non-Christians just as much as they do today. >So I cannot agree that Christmas is primarily a religious >holiday; it is, fundamentally, whatever one celebrates. (And not >necessarily on Dec. 25, either.) And here's the big one, folks! Wingate says: CHRISTMAS IS HANUKKAH. CHRISTMAS IS WINTER SOLSTICE. CHRISTMAS IS THE ENTIRE WINTER SEASON. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. (oops!) >To be sure, the government is not to be in business of advocating or >supporting religion. It therefore should not be made to be in the business >of advocating atheism or inattention to religion. Wingate is getting very close to the frightening conclusion reached by one of our nation's courts recently: absence of religion is in itself a religion. (I'm just waiting for the details on tax- exempt status. . .where do I sign up? And where are the services going to be held?) Contrary to YOUR beliefs, Charlie, "inattention to religion" (shall we cut to the heart of the matter and say YOUR religion?) is hardly a fall from grace. And because the government may not support any one religion (which includes those little nativity scenes), it doesn't mean it's promoting the opposite. Saying "no, we will not put up a public Christmas tree" is NOT the same as saying "Become an atheist! Forget about your religion!" Why you are too dense to see this is hardly surprising; when something like this happens, for the first time in your smug little majority life you feel threatened. >Besides it being simply >wrong, Oh? Let's hear the substatiation on this one. >the claim that (for instance) nativity scenes have no place in >secular christmas celebration is rather presumptious; Again, why? (And the spelling is "presumptuous"--better learn to spell your middle name correctly.) >those who actually >celebrate christmas as a secular holiday are by nature better authorities on >the subject than Ms. O'Hair, who is correctly being seen as a killjoy. Let me get this straight. Someone who is practicing a custom is a better authority on whether it is discriminatory than someone on the outside? Awwww, and Ms. O'Hair just RUINED the spirit of the season by insisting that you get your CHRISTIAN ICONS OUT OF THE OFFICIAL BUILDINGS AND BACK IN YOUR CHURCH AND HOME WHERE THEY BELONG. Why, oh why, can't you keep your religion to yourself, Charlie? Why must you spray it all over the streets and stores and wish people a Merry Christmas, not even caring what they worship (if they do)? Why must you be so self-righteous that you think that because a lot of people do as you do, it's suddenly a law of nature? >What it comes down to is this: the first requirement of tolerance is giving >up the sovereign right to be offended. This sounds a lot of "shut up and be good little happy darkies." I wish fervently that people like Charlie could, for a year, live as a minority. Even living alone in a foreign country would do it. The lesson in humility and REAL tolerance would be invaluable-- not only to him, but to those of us who have to put up with his ethnocentricity. Pooh pooh@oddjob.uchicago.edu Caesar: Forgive him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature. -- George Bernard Shaw
wlinden@unirot.UUCP (Will Linden) (12/30/87)
So, since we are informed, any recognition whatever of any celebration
on or about Dec. 25th must be Christian, since those nasty
Christians invented it (and never mind pagans berating us for
"stealing" it)---
By the same argument, Mother's Day can not be a commercial or economic
creation, but MUST be a Christian religious holiday being "forced"
on those poor people, since its historical roots derive from the
church observance of "Mothering Sunday" at Mid-Lent.
Clearly, we must suppress it. And that means getting rid of Father's
Day, Grandparents' Day, and all
the other spinoffs too. Can't have something tainted by religion
oppressing people.
And I thought Thanksgiving was originated by "puritan" Christians?
Haven't heard complaints about that.
--
Will Linden cmcl2!rutgers!unirot!wlinden
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri!dasys1!wlinden
{sun,well,ihnp4,amdahl}!hoptoad!dasys1!wlinden
{cucard,bc-cis}!dasys1!wlinden