Missing The Point
Sunday, March 2nd, 2008 at 7:44 am
I once overheard a conversation in which one of the conversing parties expressed frustration over a perceived constraint that prevented him from saying “Merry Christmas” and instead forced him to say “Happy Holidays”. He went on to describe how this was another example of modern American society stifling and persecuting Christians. “We can’t even say ‘Merry Christmas’ anymore”, he lamented to his friend.
I hear this argument often from so-called “persecuted” Christians; a frustration of not being able to profess their Christian belief in a public manner. My first issue with this is the notion is how a Christian, living in a America today, can consider him or herself “persecuted” in any way. At least 75% of the country’s population consider themselves Christian, hardly a minority. Although a persecuted majority sounds like an oxy-moron, it can happen (see Iraq’s Shi’ites), but modern Christians in the United States don’t have a non-Christian leader suppressing them. Quite the contrary; George W. Bush is a self-professed “born again” Christian. I have real difficulty in validating the “persecuted majority” hardship case that’s so often presented. I don’t believe it holds any water.
I think there is a missed point here. I think the point is less about silencing Christianity and more about respecting other people. There is, unfortunately, a seemingly inherent arrogance that comes along with Christian religious groups. The presumption that everyone is, or should be, a Christian is arrogant and disrespectful. Not everyone in the country, the estimated remaining 25%, are Christian. They may follow other belief systems or no belief system at all.
Personally I don’t have a problem with Christians saying “Merry Christmas”; I celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday, a holiday with an emphasis on love and family and I support freedom of speech. I understand that the country is primarily Christian; that is a reality. As an individual one can say anything one wants. It’s a big part of what our country is-or should be-about; freedom of speech. However, it’s entirely acceptable for a public-facing entity-such as a retail store or a restaurant-to prefer “Happy Holidays” over “Merry Christmas” as a show of respect for others who don’t share the Christian faith. “Happy Holidays” is a blanket statement, it says to everyone who celebrates a holiday during this time to do so and be happy. It’s a cross-religion, cross-cultural wishing of happiness.
In fact, any government agency has a constitutional obligation to not favor one religion over another. Contrary to what the radical Religious Right would have us believe, the United States of America was founded on the idea of a secular government. Our founding fathers, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Thomas Payne-all the major players and many of whose faces adorn our money-set forth an explicitly secular government. Rewriting history will not change this fact. It wasn’t until 1956 that the U.S. replaced E Pluribus Unum with “In God We Trust” as our country motto, relegating E Pluribus Unum to the back of the bill/coin. The U.S. was not founded as a Christian government; in fact, virtually all the key founding fathers were decidedly non-Christian, many of them Deists and/or Free Masons. They were truly visionaries, centuries ahead in their open-mindedness and wisdom.
I think the claim that Christians are “not allowed” to say Merry Christmas is, to put it bluntly, unfounded and downright whiny. Claiming to be a persecuted majority won’t change the fact that it’s not true. I’d actually like to see some of these persecuted Christians walk a mile in the shoes of an atheist or a homosexual for instance; maybe then they would gain a better understanding of how inclusion in the nation’s largest in-group has its advantages.
I think many Christians miss the point. Christians are and should be able to say what they want. It is, so far, still a free country. However, assuming that public-facing groups and government, who interact with both Christian and non-Christian people, have an obligation to support and propagate Christianity is arrogant and even dangerous. It is, in spirit of a secular government, un-American. Instead of whining about suppression and persecution I’d like to see more tolerance and respect to others. Isn’t that what they claim Jesus and Christianity is all about?
FACT: When Chuck Norris was a baby, he didn't suck his mother's breast. His mother served him whiskey, straight out of the bottle.
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Brian, I think you are the one missing the point and playing into the hands of your Christian co-worker. The fact of the matter is that retail stores have been moving to a more generic message for a long time. Since the early nineties retail stores have noticed that if they stretch the holiday buying period, they make more money because people tend to buy more if they have a longer time to shop. I don’t know if you have noticed but all the holiday gear comes out earlier and earlier and is extended later and later. Right now the holiday decorations are out before Halloween and extend through new years. So in that period you have all the solstice related holidays, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Eid Al-Adha, Christmas, Kwanzaa, and New Year’s. There are probably more holidays in there because almost every religion has a holiday near the winter solstice. With all these holidays in the same time frame, retailers discovered that the more agnostic their message, the more money they will make because they wouldn’t accidentally offend a particular religious group. It isn’t about being anti-Christmas, it is about being pro-money. The fact is, retailers make more money by appealing to the most broad customer base possible. It makes sense because the United States is getting more and more diverse over time.
So, who came up with the ‘War On Christmas’? Christians! There is not a ‘War On Christmas’ by anyone. The story was made up by Christian religious groups, most notably the American Family Association and the Liberty Council supported by Jerry Falwell. Why? Again, money. By propagating the ‘War On Christmas’ lie, Christian organizations make more money from their riled up base who donate more to fight the ‘War On Christmas’. Christians are not discriminated against in this country. There is nobody going around saying that Christians can’t go around saying “Merry Christmas”. It is all a ploy to get a bump in donations during the holidays.
-Matt
March 4th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Great point Matt. My point isn’t entirely about retailers; I think you’re right about them being more pro-money than just plain respectful. I’m really including all public-facing groups, retailers included. This would be, for example, retail, hotels, restaurants, and, more importantly, government. It is absolutely mandatory to restrict our government from favoring one religion over another. It’s also imperative that government not favor religion over non-religion too. The secular government must be preserved, and that means often ruffling the feathers of some special interest groups along the way.
Thanks for the insight on “The War on Christmas” lie. I’d never really looked into the origins of these “campaigns” but that’s exactly what they are. If you say anything enough times people will start to believe it and, in many cases, not question the origin. Again, that’s great insight and it’s helped me improve my critical thinking skills.
Unfortunately what these kinds of campaigns do is put people on the defensive. Once you’re on the defensive then you’re continually trying to dig yourself out of the hole. You’re continually trying to justify something that’s already obvious. It’s better to stay on the offensive, shoot it back over to them. They cry “war on Christmas” and we automatically argue the reasons why it’s not true. It doesn’t matter to them that it’s not true, they’ve made the claim and now we’re trying to exonerate ourselves. The better solution is probably to turn the tables and stay on the offensive. Force the burden of proof back on them because they, after all, made the claim in the first place.
Maybe my analysis of everything going forward should be how it ties back to money. Isn’t that really the catalyst for just about everything everywhere?