The "Take Back Christmas" campaign

[velvetpage]

There was an article in our paper this morning about the campaign by a rather large number of people in the States to put the word "Christmas" back into the Holiday Season.

I'm of two minds about this.

First, I would be quite willing to celebrate other religious holidays as well. I would like to learn more about the various holidays celebrated by my students, particularly the Hindi and Islamic ones, because those are the bulk of my other-faith students. I would appreciate having access to the music of these cultures, so that I could teach elements of that music and culture in my arts classes. I have no problem with inclusiveness.

The only time I get annoyed is when a group (educational or political, usually) decides that any faith is allowed to display the greetings traditional to their faith, except mine. So, I cautiously support the lawsuit launched against two towns in Florida that permitted Happy Hannukah displays but not a Nativity scene. Sorry, guys, that's not inclusiveness; that's discrimination against a major religious group, precisely because it is a major religious group.

On the other hand, I understand that most cities don't have the money to be all-inclusive by specifically mentioning every faith, and therefore "Season's Greetings" is a safe and, to my mind, reasonable compromise.

So, my suggestion: if community groups are willing to set up and take down their public displays themselves, and incur all costs associated with them (or, alternatively, be granted the same amount for each religious group that asks, over the course of a year), and if there is space in areas normally reserved for such displays, go ahead and make them religious but inclusively so - that is, any faith group willing to take the time and energy to make the display has the right to space, etc, to set it up. Then the only group that has any reason to be upset is the group that doesn't want to celebrate anything, and I can't see how we could make them happy, too.

Any city that knowingly fails to provide equal space for holiday displays of multiple faiths is guilty of discrimination. (There does, of course, need to be a timeline for applying for that space, and a protocol for granting it, but most cities have protocols in place that could easily be adapted to this use.) These displays do not need to happen only in December, since there are other big festivals in other faiths at other times of the year.

If the city in question wishes to sponsor a sign saying "Season's Greetings," or something similar, after providing opportunities for faiths to set up their own displays, that is their choice and an inclusive option.

I don't want to force my faith down anyone's throat. I do want to be able to celebrate it publicly without being labelled politically incorrect or intolerant for doing so.

Thoughts, please?

Comments

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

I saw an article recently about how a lot of the "megachurches" in this country will be closed on Christmas Day.

Sorry, but it ain't the state that's the biggest threat to the religious significance of the holiday.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Well, only 8 out of 1,200 "megachurches" them will be closed. 99.94% will be open. That's not hypocrisy, it's a tiny minority breaking from the vast majority.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for those churches, but 11:00 Christmas Day will see my family at church.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

And you, curiously, aren't complaining that the state is taking away christmas. ;)

[siobhan63.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, Montreal, with a church, cathedral or basilica within spitting distance no matter where you are in the city, seems to only recognize xmas in any way -- i.e manger set up in Place Jacques Cartier, and no one makes a stink about that. The city has a growing muslim population, a small jewish population, and various "others", but you never hear anyone getting upset over the abundance of manger scenes. In French, the usual greeting/wish to people is "Joyeuses fêtes!" which doesn't single out xmas and does recognize New Year's as well.

Dunno why it's just not an issue here. Maybe because we have too many other issues (language, separatism, etc.) to deal with?

[sassy-fae.livejournal.com]

I don't see why various religions couldn't share space for various holidays. As you pointed out, they don't all happen at the same time anyways. Besides, there's lots of symbols that have been shared, inherited, or borrowed between faiths, anyways ;)

And now, the test case:

[athelind.livejournal.com]

So, my suggestion: if community groups are willing to set up and take down their public displays themselves, and incur all costs associated with them (or, alternatively, be granted the same amount for each religious group that asks, over the course of a year), and if there is space in areas normally reserved for such displays, go ahead and make them religious but inclusively so - that is, any faith group willing to take the time and energy to make the display has the right to space, etc, to set it up.

And when the Satanists break out their Human Sacrifice Tableau, will you support them?

Re: And now, the test case:

[pyat.livejournal.com]

The Satanists would be breaking secular law, though. :)

Re: And now, the test case:

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Which secular law? If you can't display images and representations of torture devices and acts of active torture, that's going to raise some problems come Easter.

Re: And now, the test case:

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

1) There is a difference between portraying an event that happened two thousand years ago, and one that may still be practised and is against current law. Chaining someone up against their will is illegal. Displaying chains and telling about how they were used in the past is not, nor should it be. The difference between Easter displays and any potential Satanist display is one of history versus the present.

2) The Christian displays at Christmas do not have anything in them that is specifically geared towards denegrating another faith; the Satanists' display, since their faith is designed primarily as an evil parody of Christianity, would be designed to denegrate Christianity and would probably be insulting to monotheists in general. It's the public-display version of "Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose."

If they could meet basic standards for tolerance of other faiths and abidance by the laws of the jurisdiction in question, it would be wrong to deny them that space. However, I doubt they could meet those standards. I also doubt that they'd bother - from what I know of Satanism, it is a very secretive faith.

Re: And now, the test case:

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Well, let's take the logical step athelind suggests, but with a religion which is not a parody of another, then. When the worshippers of Huitzilopochtli, god of war and the sun, and special guardian of the great city of Tenochtitlan, the deified ancestral warrior-hero (to give him all his titles I know of) want to set up their tableaux as well, will the fearsome sacrifices of prisoners captured by Aztec warriors, and the Tzompantli (which if I understand correctly is a great rack dedicated to the deity, with the victims' heads strung as trophies on it) cause any qualms?

Yes, I'm deliberately choosing the most modern-day-morality-horrific religion I can find, but it is my hope to cause interesting discussion, and not to just "gross out." I ask because this is an issue that's been troubling me for a while also. Do we let any religion in? Only the "pleasant" ones? Only the "valid" ones? If so, who gets to decide what's pleasant or valid?

Re: And now, the test case:

[redeem147.livejournal.com]

Depends on who they're sacrificing. I can think of a few people...

[stress-kitten.livejournal.com]

I'm at work, so am gonna economise here and repost a comment I posted in a friend's journal regarding the almost-silence in the media over the extremely Christian basis of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. The quote from an article that I was commenting on was that the bible comments on how the name of Jesus is enough to frighten demons... and how that more and more in our society, speaking his name in public is getting given that reaction. Not on topic, but still relevant to the discussion, I think. There's what I said:

It is interesting, isn't it?

It would be nice if religion wasn't a terrifying thing to people. I guess what everyone tends to worry about, especially with the evangelical faiths, is that someone will try and impose their religion on one. It's kinda like when one tries to screen out telemarketer calls. The rabid, froathing at the mouth Christians terrify us (and I don't think it's unreasonable for us to be terrified). But it stiffles all rational debate on the subject of religion.

I think it's fair to say that it's not the name of Jesus that we are scared of saying. It's that we are afriad of hearing his froth-at-the-mouth fans taking up the cause.

I quite like the Christian faith. I was brought up Catholic and agree with many of its tenets on how to live a good life. And I like most of the Christians I personally know because they are measured, thoughtful people who have examined their faiths and live them without any sanctimonious "I am holier than thou" rhetoric. However, the thought of those of the Christian Right endorsing this film and potentially ruining it for me through self-evident posturing that makes me want to vomit is a very real risk.

In short (hah!) it is not the Christian interpretation of the film that I'm terrified of. I don't think most people are hugely concenrned with that fact either. It is, and always will be, a retelling of the story of Christ, although Hollywood may or may not have continued with its policy of gutting anything substantial from films. But I am terrified of hearing people preaching at me.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

You've got it exactly right.

[sassy-fae.livejournal.com]

"I quite like the Christian faith. I was brought up Catholic and agree with many of its tenets on how to live a good life. And I like most of the Christians I personally know because they are measured, thoughtful people who have examined their faiths and live them without any sanctimonious "I am holier than thou" rhetoric.

Replace Catholic with Protestant, and you've captured my views more eloquently than I could. As I've heard it put in the past "It's not Jesus I have the problem with, it's His raving fanboys." However, an unthinking moderate is almost as scary (in some ways) as a raving extremist. The folks I'm lucky enough to count as friends are, thankfully, neither :)

[neosis.livejournal.com]

An unthinking anything is scary. I prefer people who think.

[kianir.livejournal.com]

I wonder what you mean by "public displays" here. Most places wouldn't care if your average church or homeowner wanted to set up some sort of religious scene on their own front lawn. But no locale should be actively hosting the display of ANY religious symbolism lest they get into the sticky issue of separation of church and state

Back home the city used to allow the Catholic church to set up a small, tasteful nativity scene in a little park across from the county building. They don't anymore, and I think it's a good thing. (No, none of the other faiths get to do it either.)

[kianir.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested to know what the details are about the Florida cases in particular though. It's entirely possible that the Christian groups wanted to set up something ridiculously overblown, and were declined, and the Jews wanted to set up something modest and were approved. One of the most aggravating things about Christian groups here in the States is a victim mentality -- by behaving aggressively and defensively, as though they were a vanishing minority (which they aren't), the stands they take often drown out their competition, even in the news media.

I have to admit I'm not entirely against "reverse discrimination" either, if that's truly the case. The majority always has the power of numbers. Favoring minority groups once in a while isn't always a bad thing; even if the majority can't set up a public display, they have the monetary base to pool together and rent billboards or something.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I'm talking signs and nativity scenes on public property - Christmas trees in downtown squares, for example, would qualify. If the city is in any way involved in the display - granting space in a public park/square would be the most obvious example - then there needs to be dialogue about what they do.

As for separation of church and state - this phrase is starting to be taken as, "Take all religious reference of any kind out of the public sphere in the name of tolerance/good governance/whatever the catch phrase is." That is not what the phrase originally meant. It meant that officials of the church should not also be officials of the government, and there should be no crossover of monies between one and the other. If anyone had suggested back when that phrase was coined that people should stop basing government decisions on their faith, they would have been laughed out of the country - after they managed to explain the concept to the people involved, because it wouldn't have been immediately obvious. I do not believe it is either possible or desireable to take all religious reference out of our public culture and government. Religions are part of who we are. They are the basis for the morality that we bring to public life (all morality, not just conventional Christian morality.) Cutting them out entirely is not only impossible, it's discriminatory and ultimately counter-productive.

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

Bah Humbug to all and to all a good night.....

[collie13.livejournal.com]

What an interesting post! I've found myself fascinatedly commenting twice already just on your commenters, and I'm only now getting to commenting on your thought-provoking original post. So! Questions, we have questions... ;)

Any city that knowingly fails to provide equal space for holiday displays of multiple faiths is guilty of discrimination.

Does this mean there must be space for religious displays, or can the city decide they don't want to bother with it, and provide none at all? If my religion has a holiday on a date where your religion does not, do you still get to put up a display for your religion? If you do so, is putting up your display considered truly religious, or simply religious advertising?

What about folks who have eschewed religion -- do they get space too, or are they just out of luck? If they don't get space, why not? What if they don't want to look at religious pageantry -- should the displays not be allowed within a certain space of public buildings? If they get space too, shouldn't all non-profits get space as well? I'd love to see a display on public grounds for the L5 Society, for example, or for Second Harvest.

I already seconded athelind's interesting question regarding which religions to allow, so I'll stop here. I look forward to your thoughts, and thank you for inviting commentary -- I so love interesting discussions like this! ;)

[stress-kitten.livejournal.com]

A good chunk of one of my papers ( http://www.livejournal.com/users/stress_kitten/87422.html ) was examining where morality comes from. People tend to use religion to push home the lessons, but so many other things affect it, like home life, culture and life experiences. I see morality of an internalised kind as coming largely from empathy, an ability to follow the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" because you can actually place yourself in another's shoes and realise how that would feel to have that done to you.

I must admit that I hate seeing Christmas becoming Xmas. I may not be Christian, but it's gotta be annoying seeing the reason for your celebration being removed and replaced by rampant commercialism. I hate it, even though my focus at this time is family not faith. And I can understand people being annoyed by it all. However, if public spaces are going to be used to celebrate the holiday with religious iconage, I believe that Velvetpage's ideas should be implemented. I am more comfortable with the idea of religion being completely removed from the operation of state because, while as VP commented, it was not the initial intent, at the same time, there wasn't the diversity of faiths we live with today.

Damn, I hope that made sense. My brain is rambly.

[summerfields.livejournal.com]

Just in case you read your journal before Piet does - I sent an email regarding mom and dad being stuck in Chicago! Thanks!

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Oh, my. Not good. I'll get Piet up to look at it.

[paka.livejournal.com]

Thanks to the nature of reading backwards, I hadn't hit this one until pretty recently; I hit the earlier posts about reverse discrimination first.

The idea of a Happy Hannukah display on public property is a little hard to judge, because the most familiar trappings of the holiday do indeed represent a miracle from G-d, but on the other hand menorot and dreidls aren't like an actual representation of a god's birth. It's not quite in the same league as a nativity scene, but it's not exactly impartial either. I think the good, secular thing to do here would be to stick with Season's Greetings, and possibly use menorot in the same sense as Christmas trees - as an emblem of the holiday without further explanation.