To me, the basic irony of the War on Christmas flap has been nearly painful on a personal basis. I both enjoy the pagan aspects of the holiday, and despise the commercialization of it.
But if a store doesn't advertise a Christmas special -- well, I feel more comfortable. Would you like a gift card with that wrapped present? Perhaps an indulgence? Jesus was not an entrepreneur -- he was a fisher of men, not a hunter for bargains. Still maybe on some deep structural level, there's some glint of hope for America in this controversy.
Sometimes, struggling to describe my religious feelings, I describe myself as a "deep-ecumenist mystic." Unitarian Universalist by practice, Universalist and Jewish by birth, buddhist by philosophy, mystical Unitarian Christian (not new age, think Emerson) by spirituality, and neopagan by choice of fun parties.
But as I was navigating the crowds at Haymarket yesterday, in the press of Bostonians of a dozen denominations and religions, all preparing for winter holidays or just warming family meals, it occured to me that the War on Christmas might be a good diagnostic.
After all, do you remember in the 80's, when white males realized that it was no longer ok for them to ignore the privilege that many of them had been enjoying? The reaction was so similar. White men formed support groups. They complained of being discriminated against (even where affirmative action wasn't involved). They felt vilified and hurt.
Now, the white boys of my son's generation sort of take it for granted that they are on some vaguely tilted playing field, historically skewed, but coming to rights in equality, in a diverse society that's just...there. Part of reality.
Well Christians in this country have historically enjoyed the same blind privileges, the recognition and status, the advantages in the public sphere that used to be the unspoken assumptions of white men. Whether or not we've taken it, the shadow of Christianity (and specifically mainstream-to-evangelical protestantism) has been the definition of "religion" in the common wisdom of dominant American culture.
Perhaps the War on Christmas (besides being a shameless rating push by Bill O'R. and Fox) is a healthy sign that there's a sea change acknowledging diversity in American culture?
What do you think? Optimist? Cynic? Both?
|
|
|
|
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 15
Now, Christians are questioning whether their cultural pre-eminance is beyond question, and those questions are disturbing some Christians who don't know how to live in a diverse world. That the sea change has reached these people is a positive sign -- their reaction, procedurally, and Bill/FOX's exploitation of this particular fear, are not healthy.
I hope that clarifies a bit.
But remember, it is largely fundamentalist evangelicals who are behind this, and they don't admit to any historical context to Jesus other than the Bible itself. And oddly, only the parts of the Bible they like. (I've always enjoyed asking fundies who say gays are an abomination if they wear garments made of, say, mixed cotton and polyester, which is an abomination according to the law of Moses!).
People will pick and choose according to their prejudices and biases. My bias is that all religions are one beneath the trappings, on a mystical level. This only makes me *look* like I'm culturally sensitive. In my own odd little way, I still think I have a better clue than others. I try to compensate for it by being kind and pleasant...:)
When Sam explained the situation fully, she changed her mind. But this only shows how easily swayed many people are (or how polite she was, in an old fashioned way that makes women withdraw from argument?). It's sad.
I think the only solace I take from this whole war is that it seems that a majority of people, Christians included, think that this war is totally bogus, conscious or unconscious. Your example of the evangelical is a good one here...someone who's parroting the talking points, but then when she opens her mind, she realizes just how wrong she was. And that's the other thing that makes me pessemistic, these parroters. Those talking from the fringe tend to get heard more than those speaking more sanely. So the disinformation spreads like wildfire while the voices of reason practically have to go one by one.
In any case, good read. I'd love to see you right on this one.
I like your optimism. I would like to add that one, often overlooked, aspect of freedom of religion is freedom FROM religion. While materialism and the "big grab" of the 4th quarter are a poor substitute for personal faith or philosophy, I am glad to see the demise of the gold standard Christianity or aburd particularization of Happy this, Happy that. Happy Holidays is bland, but most appropriate for the public sphere in a secular society.
So, no religion should feel as though it were the state religion, through promotion with any activity that involves the commonweal (i.e. tax expenditures, art in government buildings, etc.).
But the secularization of holiday shopping, holiday greetings, and so on -- it's all really an issue of good manners, not separation of church and state. Multiculturalism may be a newfangled term, but courtesy is something you'd think we'd have figured out by now!
Unfortunately, there will always be a sort of rude happy cultural bullying about xmas -- in the same way that a town such as Boston with a big Irish population makes you feel that you must be Irish on St. Patrick's Day -- whether you like the idea or not.
I'm glad to see it toned down. But freedom of religion in the private sphere is no more the concern of government, technically, than freedom of cuisine. You will be exposed to the smell of tacos or chinese food walking through the food court, even if they aren't to your taste, so long as enough people like them enough to keep them in business...:)