´óÏó´«Ã½

« Previous | Main | Next »

Christmas Wars?

Post categories:

William Crawley | 19:10 UK time, Saturday, 23 December 2006

santa.jpgThat's what they call it in the United States: the "war on Christmas" is, according to some, a "strategy" to remove all references to Christmas throughout society. Cards avoiding the C-word, in favour of "Season's Greetings". A re-designation of the season as "Winter Festival". The avoidance of nativity and other biblical imagery in favour of secular images, such as Santa. Etc, etc.

Callers to some of our Radio Ulster programmes have been making the same complaints for a few weeks. I confess that I can't get particularly excited about this debate. I say "Happy Hanukkah" to Jewish friends, and they have no apparent difficulty in replying, "Happy Christmas". (A plug: We'll be talking more about the Jewish festival of Hanukkah, which ends today, on tomorrow's Sunday Sequence.) Back in September, I wished a Muslim friend "Ramadan Mubarak". And in October, I wished a Hindu friend a "Happy Diwali".

Presumably, critics of Christmas are concerned that people of other faiths (or none) might be offended by references to the Christian festival on government greetings cards and the like. Why anyone would feel upset about being wished "Happy Christmas" is a mystery to me; and I've yet to meet anyone who has been thus offended. Nor, for that matter, can I understand why anyone would wish to compel others to use Christian imagery and language against their will.

Anyway ... Since we're talking about the need for more common sense in public debates about morality and culture, I recommend Brian Walden's typically insightful "", which I happened to hear broadcast on Friday night on Radio 4.

Happy Hanukkah.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 10:29 PM on 23 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

Quite right. A libertarian attitude for the holidays that I couldn't have put better myself. Merry Christmas, all.

  • 2.
  • At 02:10 AM on 24 Dec 2006,
  • Mark wrote:

Many people around the world make statements about the United States with little or no understanding of the history or culture of that country except in its most superficial aspects. ´óÏó´«Ã½ demonstrated that with its 6 part broadcast "America Age of Empire." Sir Christopher Meyer who was Britain's ambassador to the US for over 5 years demonstrated very good but less than a perfect understanding in last week's broadcast of "The Interview."

Many of the first European settlers who left to go to what became America did so to flee religious persecution. These included the Pilgrims and the Puritans. America has been exquisitely sensitive to the possibility of the tyranny of religion and has done everything possible to preclude it from reaching its shores. The separation of church and state in the US is absolute and unequivocal. It is enshrined in the first amendment to the constitution; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." It is a jealously guarded right which has been unflinchingly defended by the Supreme Court, the final arbitor of America's laws with regard to their constitutionality. This has been interpreted to mean that no agency of government at any level is permitted to practice any activity or permit any activity on its premises which advocates or depricates any religion. In the past, there were violations of this policy. When I went to school, we had to hear a reading of a psalm from the bible once a week at assembly. But in recent years, the courts have been increasingly vigilent in eliminating these transgressions. Even the phrase "one nation under god" may be taken out of the pledge of allegience to the American flag. To be sure, there is a vocal minority of Americans who do not agree with this position and have fought it incessantly but they have always lost in the courts. (I think even Attorney General John Ashcroft lost a case and one federal judge fought and lost a bid to keep a statue which included a bible in his court.) Some of them would like to re-instate prayer in public schools. How would they feel if one day their Christian children are forced to recite prayers to Allah? Private individuals and institutions are free to do whatever they want in their religious practice of course. In recent years, many large retailers recognizing a demographic shift where there are an increasing number of people from non Christian cultures living in the US, have tailored their advertising and displays at this time of year by making them more generic and less explicit about Christmas. That is also their right. This in my view hardly constitutes a war on Christmas.

This may all seem very strange to people in other cultures where there is no separation of church and state and who have grown up accustomed to just such a connection but for most Americans, it is a crucial component of what they think of when they consider the definition of democracy.

  • 3.
  • At 07:48 AM on 24 Dec 2006,
  • pb wrote:

Mark

An alternative interpretation of the situation is that the constituion promises "freedom of religion" but this has been recently interpretaed as freedom "from" religion, isnt that right?

I mean, would the pilgrims and puritans really have expected faith to be excluded totally from public sector life?

PB

  • 4.
  • At 12:05 PM on 24 Dec 2006,
  • Mark wrote:

It is my freedom from your religion. Since I must sooner or later deal with the government, the government must not subject me to whatever constitutes your religious beliefs whatever they are. It is also my right that my tax money not support your religion. Religions get their funding from voluntary contributions which are tax exempt, and ironically, from businesses they own and operate which are also tax exempt. All they have to do to qualify is to demonstrate to the IRS that they are a true religion (even what some would term a sect or cult)and not a disguise for a political organization.

The original pilgrims and puritans and others left Europe to escape the religious intolerance which persecuted them. When they got here, some were just as intolerent of those who did not practice their own religion. This was well over a hundred years before the American Revolution and the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution grappled with the difficulty of creating a government which would be capable of performing the functions of government without the ability to usurp enough power to become a tyranny under any guise or in any form. The success of their ingenuity is the reality of a nation which remains free over two hundred years later.

  • 5.
  • At 03:33 PM on 24 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

Have a HAPPY MONDAYand Tuesday...Wednesday...Thursday WIll :-)

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ news has had fun with the M&S christmas grammar blunder. M&S misspelt "ones" as "one's". It's pretty hypocritical given that the "Seasons Greetings" message at the top of the Radio Ulster webpage (see my link) is missing the apostrophe. Can we have a ´óÏó´«Ã½ News item on that please?

  • 7.
  • At 11:19 PM on 26 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

The God of the USA "THE DOLLAR BILL" in this God we trust at Christmas time and the whole year through. America can't seperate it's self from the root of all kinds of evil. For God and the USA and the back pocket, in this we trust.

  • 8.
  • At 12:51 AM on 27 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

Billy- For my money I'm delighted that the U.S. exemplifies the kind of things you despise; it lets me know I'm living in the right place.

  • 9.
  • At 04:33 AM on 27 Dec 2006,
  • Mark wrote:

Billy, it seems to me an awful lot of leprechauns left the Emerald Isle to search for their pot of gold at the other end of the rainbow on the other side of the pond and got into a whole heap of trouble for it. It's an eeeeeeevil place Billy. Lot's of sinful things going on there. Lots of men drinking alcohol while they watch half naked women dancing. Lots of gambling and smoking tobacco too. Don't ever go there Billy, it's too dangerous, you could lose yourself forever. I'm sure many a strong man, maybe even stronger men than you have.

  • 10.
  • At 04:48 AM on 27 Dec 2006,
  • Mark wrote:

I'm sorry Billy, I meant to say "scantily clothed women." What was I ever thinking?

This post is closed to new comments.

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.