'Tis the season to be irrational
It's that time of year again: time for the Christian subhumans to get all bent out of shape with "Xmas" or "Holiday Trees" or the absence of an explicitly religious aspect to Christmas; for the Jewish subhumans to get all bent out of shape that there's even as much reference to Christ as there is; for the Black Nationlist subhumans to babble about Kwanzaa as though it has any relevance; for paranoid school administrators and other public officials to homogenize everything to "holiday season"; and for shameless elected demogogues to score points by complaining about that.
For those of you who assert that Jesus is the reason for the season, I would point out that the season predates Jesus, and is, in fact, the result of the 23.4 degree tilt Earth's rotational axis (although a more complete discussion of this can be found here); that as such, the winter solstice has occasioned celebrations as far back as written history extends. I would also note that the Bible describes the time of Jesus' birth as occurring either in the fall or the spring, and the reason Christmas was set as December 25th was to compete with the non-Christian and pagan winter solstice festivals. Hmm: that sounds like the charge that various Christian subhumans level against the creators of Kwanzaa.
Yes, I am stating for the record that Christmas is a made-up holiday. As though that matters. More to the point, Christmas is important and relevent precisely because our public expressions pull Christ out of it.
Only subhumans would deny that a Christmas tree or a nativity scene costs money and space. Given that, if Christmas is only about Christ, spending at any level of government to promote the holiday represents theft of money from non-believers to promote a religion in which they do not believe. If a Christmas tree represents Christ's birth, it has no place in the public space. If, on the other hand, it represents "peace on Earth", "goodwill to men" , charity, family, blah, blah, blah -- all of which are secular messages -- it's not nearly as noxious to use everyone's money to support what is kind of a pretty thing. I would add, of course, that the "Christmas" trees, holly, and mistletoe are actually pagan symbols, that "Yule" is a wiccan sabbat of the winter solstice, and any use of these things by Christians is corruption of the deeper religious significance of them -- much as Christians say "holiday" trees are a corruption of Christmas.
But why does the state say anything about Christmas at all? Many Christians own homes with lawns, on which they can place nativity scenes and crosses, so if Christians want to see evidence of their religion, they should put it on their own property: so city hall, and the taxpayer, would not have to pay for it. Schools can and should mark holidays important to the populations they serve, as sort of cultural exposure -- in a factual, perhaps even analytical way, without making a statement about the validity of the belief underlying them. There can be decorations, foods, little parties, whatever. But that can take a lot of money and time. Most schools get into trouble because the only holidays they celebrate are Christian, and maybe Jewish, ones. When I went to elementaray school, in Willingboro, New Jersey, we got Rosh Hoshannah and Yom Kippur off -- and who doesn't like vacations? Again, though, the holidays were days off, and nobody under public salary told me that I should actually observe the holidays themselves, much less believe in the underlying theological assumptions of them.
In short, "holiday" tree is not a bad compromise for what is an increasingly heterogeneous society. Christians put up Christmas trees, Jews can light mennorahs, Blacks can light Kwanzaa candles, pagans can burn the Yule log -- all in their own homes, with their own resources. When we go into the public sphere, we can appreciate the lights, colors, etc. in a secular, universal way, without the burden of one or another individual's idea of what Christmas should be.
So Blessed Yule, all. If somebody tells you you should believe something that you don't choose to, smile and offer a pleasant greeting, rather than caving in his or her skull, which would be more appropriate. Or you could choose to rant.
For those of you who assert that Jesus is the reason for the season, I would point out that the season predates Jesus, and is, in fact, the result of the 23.4 degree tilt Earth's rotational axis (although a more complete discussion of this can be found here); that as such, the winter solstice has occasioned celebrations as far back as written history extends. I would also note that the Bible describes the time of Jesus' birth as occurring either in the fall or the spring, and the reason Christmas was set as December 25th was to compete with the non-Christian and pagan winter solstice festivals. Hmm: that sounds like the charge that various Christian subhumans level against the creators of Kwanzaa.
Yes, I am stating for the record that Christmas is a made-up holiday. As though that matters. More to the point, Christmas is important and relevent precisely because our public expressions pull Christ out of it.
Only subhumans would deny that a Christmas tree or a nativity scene costs money and space. Given that, if Christmas is only about Christ, spending at any level of government to promote the holiday represents theft of money from non-believers to promote a religion in which they do not believe. If a Christmas tree represents Christ's birth, it has no place in the public space. If, on the other hand, it represents "peace on Earth", "goodwill to men" , charity, family, blah, blah, blah -- all of which are secular messages -- it's not nearly as noxious to use everyone's money to support what is kind of a pretty thing. I would add, of course, that the "Christmas" trees, holly, and mistletoe are actually pagan symbols, that "Yule" is a wiccan sabbat of the winter solstice, and any use of these things by Christians is corruption of the deeper religious significance of them -- much as Christians say "holiday" trees are a corruption of Christmas.
But why does the state say anything about Christmas at all? Many Christians own homes with lawns, on which they can place nativity scenes and crosses, so if Christians want to see evidence of their religion, they should put it on their own property: so city hall, and the taxpayer, would not have to pay for it. Schools can and should mark holidays important to the populations they serve, as sort of cultural exposure -- in a factual, perhaps even analytical way, without making a statement about the validity of the belief underlying them. There can be decorations, foods, little parties, whatever. But that can take a lot of money and time. Most schools get into trouble because the only holidays they celebrate are Christian, and maybe Jewish, ones. When I went to elementaray school, in Willingboro, New Jersey, we got Rosh Hoshannah and Yom Kippur off -- and who doesn't like vacations? Again, though, the holidays were days off, and nobody under public salary told me that I should actually observe the holidays themselves, much less believe in the underlying theological assumptions of them.
In short, "holiday" tree is not a bad compromise for what is an increasingly heterogeneous society. Christians put up Christmas trees, Jews can light mennorahs, Blacks can light Kwanzaa candles, pagans can burn the Yule log -- all in their own homes, with their own resources. When we go into the public sphere, we can appreciate the lights, colors, etc. in a secular, universal way, without the burden of one or another individual's idea of what Christmas should be.
So Blessed Yule, all. If somebody tells you you should believe something that you don't choose to, smile and offer a pleasant greeting, rather than caving in his or her skull, which would be more appropriate. Or you could choose to rant.
posted by heavynettle at 10:45
1 Comments:
I like your note that school districts' schedules should reflect the reality of their student bodies. If 95% of your kids are going to take off Christmas to go see grandma, why waste money heating the building? If 70% will be out on Yom Kippur, why staff the cafeteria (even if kosher foods are served)? My university was a secular institution, which of course took government grant money, but as it had a large Jewish population classes were always cancelled for the high holidays.
Likewise, in those school districts with high Muslim populations, why hold classes during Ramadan if they are just going to be distracted by hunger? The question of public recognition of holidays should always be about money; which, unfortunatley, is why it sucks to be minority anywhere in the world: you just don't, literally, account for as much as the majority. Public institutions should, however, make reasonable accomidations for minority believes and behaviors, e.g., Ramadan (an EXCELLENT party if you've never attended.) The question is where do you draw the line between inconveniencing the rest of a group for the believes of a subset.
Post a Comment
<< Home