Pat's latest column essentially boils down to, "We've had Christmas as long as I can remember and nobody ever said anything then", therefore people complaining now must be full of crap. This is sort of like saying that slavery and killing the Indians was ok because they didn't write angry letters to Congressmen. By Pat's logic, black folks must have actually liked Jim Crow, and ditto for Jews and pogroms and, say, Shiites under Saddam. "Long live the Czar", right?
Pat says he can't understand why various different groups without much in common are banding together to go after Christmas.
Some are made up of people who apparently have only recently discovered that they object to Christmas observances. Many of them have participated in the Christmas traditions themselves. And many still do, albeit at home or behind the closed doors of their churches! What's afoot here?
Probably a bunch of things. Maybe they have a tree but don't want a creche in their face. Quite likely the issue of public square versus private space is a big issue too. Without giving any specifics, this is really a pretty useless couple of sentences.
It's not surprising that the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union (known to most by just its initials) would recently ''decide'' that open displays like manger scenes in public places are unconstitutional
Try 1989, genius, when the ACLU sued to remove a creche AND menorah. This, incidentally, is where we get the precedent that menorahs are secular symbols (which is a whole can of beans in of itself).
their lawsuits and threats against any Christian manifestations have become the expected background noise for Americans of faith.
Only people getting their news from you and Fox News. Check this out. Hell, take a look at this, too. Wait a minute, disagreeing with someone and yet finding something of merit in their argument? What a concept.
And, although we heard little or nothing from atheists and their small organizations in the past, they've recently decided that other citizens openly celebrating the birth of Jesus anywhere near them is offensive, and a ''violation of their rights.'' It was inconsequential to them for generations, but now they can't stand it.
See above argument, which of course, really isn't one.
Then Pat goes after "other" groups that are allying with "militant groups" (I must have missed when American atheists started going around with machine guns and shooting pastors) like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, who "are lately persuaded that manger scenes in department store windows and town squares are somehow violating the First Amendment and abridging the ''rights'' of a few individuals – most of whom hadn't even thought to complain."
Wait, so first you say that no one ever complained, and now when people DO complain, you say that it's negated because they didn't complain earlier. Hey, Pat, I bet there was a long time before women were complaining about rape (and even longer until people were actually listening to them); that doesn't mean they were cool with it OR that it was inherently ok. Just because someone doesn't complain about something doesn't automatically mean it's fine, and just because you personally don't know anybody offended doesn't mean that no one is. Obviously you have to find balance on these things and can't have "avoiding offense" be your sole motivation or goal. But you also can't dismiss when somebody DOES complain just because "it was good enough for your grand-pappy". Not only is that patronizing, it's also damn stupid. Do you think anybody in Afghanistan was complaining in public when the Taliban was shooting people or jailing men for not having long enough beards? Get a clue.
Pat then takes us on another saccharine-sweet ride of his idyllic youth. It was a simpler time, when white people were more sepia-toned and black people weren't around, when the only Hispanics you had to hear about were that jackass Santa Anna, and where "Jew" was a curse word.
Hey Pat, I've got a brilliant idea: why don't you ask somebody who's NOT YOU about Christmas? And just because everybody in your house got some sort of lobotomy when they smelled Douglass Fir doesn't mean everyone else- Christian and non- thinks of Christmas- or a bunch of the things ASSOCIATED with it, like rampant consumerism, insipid carols, and the whitest Jews you ever did see, in the same way. Maybe some people like Christmas because it's an opportunity for family togetherness (raises hand) or, as you (almost) pointed out, because if tweaked the right way, it can serve as a good message for good vibes.I've been around quite awhile now, admittedly, but I feel sure most people reading this have early memories similar to mine: The Christmas season heralded, right after Thanksgiving, by all kinds of carols on most radio stations. Department stores and other emporiums competing for the most attractive and impressive depictions of Mary and Joseph and the baby Jesus, the shepherds, and the three wise men. Little towns and major cities decorating the business sections and virtually transforming them into scenes from Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol.''
And with all this decorating and celebrating, people's attitudes softened and spirits lifted, and the emphasis seemed to shift from ''getting'' to giving. New happy Christmas songs were added to the popular play lists, and constantly we heard ''Don't you wish Christmas could last all year long? Wouldn't the world be a better place?''
And incidentally, no, Christmas 24-7 would not make the world a better place- it would result in more BS lawsuits, more "War on Christmas" bitching, a major dip in the economy (the only people working would be in retail and manufacturing), and oh yeah, electric bills bigger than Dick Cheney's annual paycheck. We'll all be starving, but at least we'll have "Jingle Bell Rock". Woot.
Now Pat's annoyed. And trust me... you wouldn't like him when he's annoyed. He's a direct descendant of Daniel Freakin' Boone, man. He'll mow you down and use your scalp as a hat.
Has our whole government and our whole legislative system suddenly become concerned that a very few atheists and people of other religions are being seriously – and unconstitutionally – offended?
Um, first, you can't be "unconstitutionally offended". Acting to avoid offense might cause you to do something which is unconstitutional, or you might advocate a position which is unconstitutional, but a feeling in of itself, AFAIK, doesn't place anywhere in the spectrum. And God forbid the government try to be sensitive to its minorities. Maybe this whole conversation could be easier if we toned down the persecution hysteria and stopped denying that both sides- that's right, BOTH, actually have legitimate points. Of course, we've yet to hear any of that from Pat.
No, all this friction and protest and legal action are being militantly prosecuted by individuals and groups who resent any notion that America is a ''Christian nation,''
They don't resent it; they argue that it isn't true. That's like saying scientists resent the Flat Earth theory. And frankly, the opposing side hasn't really made its case to me. And the Declaration of Independence saying "God" in it doesn't cut it, sorry. What is being resented is the attempt to impose Christian hegemony on the nation as a whole, and then the intellectually dishonest claim that it's justified because "it's a Christian nation anyway".
and who are determined not to be confronted by moral or spiritual expectations that might cramp their style.
I don't know what this means.
You can draw your own conclusions about the source of this anti-Christ spirit.
Yeah, because you've left us tons of options here. Also, nice literal demonization of your opponents, Pat. Grandpa Boone must be so proud.
Pat then shills for some youth choir for reasons not entirely clear. I'd like to think he's doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but let's be real, he just called everybody he disagrees with as having been touched by the Anti-Christ.
Do I have an overall point here? Just this: Nobody forces Christmas on anybody. Nobody forces a St. Patrick's or Sons of Italy or Chanukah or Kwanzaa or Cinco de Mayo celebration, or any of the many other festive celebrations that are special to groups among us in this diverse society, on anybody.
I'm not sure that washes. Christmas is a Federal holiday, so legally, it's already being imposed on everyone. This isn't necessarily bad, but don't act like Christmas, from a legal standpoint, is on the same level as Cinco de Mayo. Incidentally, "Sons of Italy" is an organization, not a holiday. (Hey, did anyone else catch that kick-ass Ancient Order of Hibernians parade last night?)
More from the High Priest of understanding:
Just like old Ebenezer Scrooge, people with pinched, warped, insensitive, self-absorbed, miserable souls can stand off and mutter ''Bah, humbug'' to their shriveled hearts' content. The festive spirit will pass soon enough, anyway.And hey, if these admittedly hopeless nonbelievers want to devise some public display of their own – a depiction of a black hole, an empty eternity, a molding grave, an endless evolution from primordial ooze through ape ancestors all the way through to final meaningless ooze and blackness – more power to 'em! We'll find room in the public square for them, too.
Wow, Pat, you're so kind. Really? You'll let us into YOUR square, that your however-many-greats-grandfather built with his own two hands (plus slaves)? Wow, it's almost enough to make you become a Converso. And I'm sure the Prince of Peace would totally approve of you smearing millions of people as having "warped souls" just because they want to get your manger out of their face. And WE'RE self-absorbed.
But don't – repeat, don't – try to stifle our joy or rob us of the gentle, giving, and loving spirit of the Christmas season.
I must be missing something. Since when was Christmas exclusively celebrated via giant Nativity scenes in the town square? Didn't this used to be a CHURCH holiday? Man, I hope you never get a tradition that you have to punch a nonbeliever in the face.
Who's it for? It's for all who will receive it, be blessed by it, bask in it, profit from it, or even – like old Ebenezer himself – be surprised and overtaken and rejuvenated by it. Millions of us still hear the echoes of the angels proclaiming, ''Peace on earth, good will toward men.'' All men. Even the disclaimers, the nonbelievers, the Scrooges.
I get it, it's like Jesus. Sneaky, Pat. So you're saying Christmas should be cool because you mean well. Well, sorry, but just because you have good intentions still doesn't make it Constitutional, or necessarily offense-free.
Can't we all use a little period of peace right now? And will good will, like that exemplified and sung by the Children of the World Choir, hurt anybody?
I don't know, Pat, maybe it's like how people don't like being witnessed to. Or, you know, having their ancestors baptized. Again, just because you don't get it (or don't care to) doesn't invalidate the criticism.
Pat, of course, misses the real point. The question is whether, on a cultural level, Christmas is being pushed on people. Is this automatically bad? Depends who you ask, I guess, but it seems like a worthwhile thing to examine- that is, it would seem to be a legitimate thing for the millions of Christians of goodwill who don't understand what the problem is (unlike people like Pat Boone who automatically reject the suggestion of legitimate problems with how Christmas is disseminated, vilify their opponents as being defficient in soul or spirit, and then portray themselves as persecuted).
This issue is particularly important in the public square, which, in my and a lot of lefties' POV, is supposed to be a neutral area. You want to have a nativity in your front yard? Go nuts. Hell, have the three wise man sodomizing the Anti-Christ, and put Hillary Clinton's face on him. Somebody might not like it, but you have the right to do what you want on your own property. The real issue is where the boundary lines should be. The problem with the war on Christmas (aside from the issue of intellectual and media honesty) is that the two sides are talking past each other. With the exception of some wingnuts, left-wingers mainly want to iron out what is appropriate in the public square. Their opponents, however, dodge the issue by attempting to scuttle the debate before it starts by saying that it shouldn't happen in the first place. (We're a Christian nation, nobody's really offended by it, Who are you to tell us "real Americans" what to do, etc.)
Even if the amount of people who feel this way is infintesimal, it's still a worth-while question to ask, just like some of the stranger "anti-Christmas" moves (if they actually occur) should be rethought. I don't think the answer is to ban red and green, but nor do I think it's appropriate to be a jackass a-la Lou Dobbs.
The real problem, though, is that we aren't talking about the important questions- How can we deal with having multiple traditions coexisting in the same society? How do we deal with different celebrations? Do we celebrate everything? Do we celebrate nothing? Or do we attempt some sort of limited representation? Throwing your hands up and saying, "It's a Christian nation, na-na-na" is the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. Go hide if you want to, Pat, but don't act like you're being forced out. You're removing yourself from an important conversation, and you're skewing the debate to make people feel sorry for you and themselves.
Oh, and you've got a lot of nerve talking about goodwill when you say we're all alligned with the Anti-Christ. Go choke on a holly bush.
Merry Christmas, Pat Boone. Now get your Santa Claus off my lawn.
No comments:
Post a Comment