velvetpage (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
velvetpage) wrote2005-12-10 11:56 am
velvetpage) wrote2005-12-10 11:56 am
The "Take Back Christmas" campaign
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?
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?
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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 :)
no subject