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

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:

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, images, right. A tableaux.

Re: And now, the test case:

[pyat.livejournal.com]

That was me

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:

[michellinator.livejournal.com]

I feel the need to type it... crucifixes gross me out. They're just creepy. I always see people wearing them and want to point out that there's a dude dying around their neck. ::shudder:: (I grew up attending a UM church - a plain cross and a flame on the wall, no dead guys.)

Re: And now, the test case:

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Oh, you're not alone. Apparently in some Catholic churches there are these little alcoves along the walls which hold life-sized sculptures or dioramas of the saints in their "passion" (I think that's what it's called when the saint is being martyred?). There was one I always had trouble walking past because it was so scary to me as a 7 or 8 year old child -- I think I was later told it was Stephen. Anyway, he had arrows sticking through him and broken bones sticking out of him due to the rocks that had been thrown at him, and this creepy expression with upraised eyes, like he wasn't even really there. Very frightening to a small, young me! ;)

Re: And now, the test case:

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

They bug me, too. In addition to the gross-out factor, they're celebrating the wrong thing. The important fact is not that of the cross WITH the body on it - that happened all the time. What matters is the EMPTY cross, and the empty tomb.

This is the Protestant in me coming out. :)

Re: And now, the test case:

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

If, at some point, the city decides they are squicked out enough by the religions that rear their heads and demand recognition, they can always take option B: no space to anybody, no exceptions, no lights in the trees, no bows on park benches.

You're right, we couldn't then discriminate against faiths that grossed us out, other than by choosing that this particular display invalidates all the others.

Re: And now, the test case:

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Okay, that's valid. I admit I too would lean towards the 'no space for anyone' option, rather than trying to figure out how to fairly pick and choose who gets to put up their displays.

Re: And now, the test case:

[redeem147.livejournal.com]

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