I should probably save this for later, seeing as how it's not quite time for Christmas yet, but seeing as how every retailer in the country has begun to shove the holiday season down our throats, I, too, shall board this bandwagon. While I don't celebrate Christmas - it's a bogus and highly secular holiday at best - I hope that those of you that do have a very merry one, indeed.
First and foremost, we'll get this out of the way. 'Struth.
I've been avoiding this topic amongst my peers for some time, as I feel it is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as so many Conservative crusades turn out to be. Basically, it's someone shouting "I'm a victim! I'm a victim!" so loudly that they can't be ignored, and when you tell them to shut up, they go, "See!? I told you!" It seems that calling this crusade stupid would be playing right inot the trap, sell a few more books, and generally make me wish I had ignored them in the first place. Of course, this leads to the dilemma of eventually leading them to find some other victim crusade that I can't ignore.
I finally had a chance to go over the book, recently. In the past, I heard all sorts of silly things on FOX News (unsurprisingly, nowhere else), the most recent being some silly resolution protecting "symbols of Christmas," which FOX responded by putting on screen a full roll call of everyone who voted against said resolution... twice. So, I just so happened to find myself browsing the Internet for devious activities and, once again, my curiosity overthrew my better judgement. I checked the book out, and yup, it was every bit as stupid and victim-centric as I thought it would be. This particular entry is based on a brief examination of the book (especially the last chapter) and may not be completely accurate. But then, as the author said on FOX News, all forums and blogs are the litter on the side of the super information highway, so I guess I have absolutely no responsibility to him (or anybody else, for that matter) to be fair or accurate in my portrayal of his work. I'm going to try, anyway.
The book is basically a dozen or so chapters, each centering around a specific situation in which Christmas was somehow destroyed. I found it almost immediately intriguing that there are so few examples, played out in such detail. Are there more examples of these things, or perhaps the author is using a bit of selectivity to make his case for this "war?" The US is a huge country and we've been celebrating Christmas for quite some time. How many millions of Christmases weren't destroyed by this war? For every example he gives, are there ten thousand examples to counterpoint that? Are there any situations where Christmas was used to oppress the religiousness of others that somehow didn't make the cut? I'm willing to guess yeah. Lots. This is a one-sided argument that doesn't even - for a second - take for granted that what's not in the book matters in the least, and what's not in the book is far more representative of what's going on than the examples selected exclusively to build his point.
A war is something that's organized. There's no War on Christmas pamphlets going out. I know it seems so odd, but the fact is, these changes are a direct result of our nation becoming more comfortable with diversity. A store telling you "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is simply admitting that you are a stranger and they could not or should not presume your religious affiliation. Is telling a Jewish person "Merry Christmas" going to offend them? Only in that you are making assumptions about them that aren't true. Saying "Happy Holidays" isn't an affront to Christians; it's an acceptance of the fact that not all of us belong to the same faith or ideals.
In my eyes, Christmas is officially a secular holiday, and it is completely possible for a government building to display pictures of Santa Claus, candy canes, and snowflakes. What you can't do is display a baby Jesus, because even if Christmas is secular, there's no way the Son of God ever could be. I personally find manger scenes to be offensive, but not because they are stupid. It's because everybody in them are white. It shows a grotesque misunderstanding of the time period and geographical location of the scene it's portraying. But I'm not going to make anybody take it down unless it does something else even more offensive, such as suggest that the government prefers one religion or another, or that it is done with tax payer dollars and excludes the interests of some of the very people which helped pay for it.
The last chapter in the book is entitled "The War on Christmas." If there is a war against them, and I'm a little more willing to believe this, it is a result of their own actions. When they try to remove evolution from science classes and replace it with thinly veiled religious myths, they are going to make enemies. When they tell gay people that they aren't entitled to the same civil rights as everyone else, they're going to make enemies. If they picket Planned Parenthoods, they are going to make enemies. If there is indeed a war, it's their war, and we are only trying to defend ourselves from them.
but the thing that really pissed me off about this chapter is that he reproduces some letter sent in to some random newspaper. The letter is simply someone complaining about people putting "Jesus has risen" signs in their yards, and says that it seems combative, like posting a pro-life sign in their yard. He didn't think people needed to draw battle lines starting at their front door, and suggested that faith should be something that is personal. Gibson (the author of The War on Christmas) totally rips into him for this.
I re-read the letter, and it wasn't offensive. It was complaining, but not unfairly and it made a couple of good points. It did not insult anybody nor did it attack anybody, but simply engaged in a debate about this practice. As people whom I interact with regularly know, I believe that the debate is everything, and when you can't have a debate, that's when you need it all the more. I really couldn't figure out why he was ripped into.
Gibson goes into a little bit about free speech and how the letter writer needs to appreciate that people have the right to speak, even if he doesn't want to hear it. I re-read the letter again. the guy never said they couldn't put signs in their yard. He wasn't trying to limit their free speech. He was just pointing out that it was a confrontational practice that he didn't agree with. Gibson needs to learn that one of the consequences of free speech is that anything you say can be challenged by someone else. If someone says something that you disagree with, it is your duty to respond in debate.
The next thing Gibson says is that this country was founded by "religionists." I'm not sure if that's a real word or not, but I assume that he means Christians. Problem is, he's wrong. Many of the founding fathers of this great nation were not Christians, but were, in fact, deists. They believed in some sort of non-interactive deity and did not participate in worship at all. In fact, Thomas Jefferson released a version of the Bible without all the fancy miracles and stuff written about Jesus, leaving just a man and his moral teachings.
This country was not founded on Christian ideals, but rather against them. The government was created in such a way that no one religion could ever take control of it and dominate the populace. Whatever you believe, you can and the government will never think better or worse of you because of it. I don't know where these psychos get the impression that there's hidden code in the Constitution that gives Christians the run of the country, but the simple fact is this country was created to prevent them from taking over, not give them the keys. You'd think that an educated news anchor like himself would at least know this much.
Geez, we already have abortions, but we have to defend it against Christian morals. We already have evolution, but we have to defend it against Christian beliefs. We already have the freedom to engage in behavior of our choosing in the privacy of our own homes, and we have to defend that, as well. We don't have gay marriage, but we are increasingly being left behind in this regard. There's a war in this country, but it's not against Christmas. It is started and engaged in by people who are against diversity and equal rights.
It is, in no uncertain terms, a war for America and I, for one, won't let the ignorant win.
No comments:
Post a Comment