American Culture Wars: Christmas, the Holidays, and the "War on Tolerance and Diversity"
Two weeks exactly till Christmas and I'm getting REALLY tired of DittoHeads, fans of The O'Reilly Factor, and their fellow travelers talking about a supposed "War on Christmas." They're worried about whether a store clerk says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" when over 2000 American servicepeople have died in a REAL war in Iraq? They're kidding right? To extrapolate: whether the vendor calls a tree I drag into my house a "Christmas Tree" or a "Holiday Tree," is worthy of as much of their attention as Americans dying in combat half a world from home? To say I am dumbfounded is an understatement.
But, ok, let's discuss this shall we?
First out of the box, I should mention that FOX's own online store sells "Christmas Ornaments" strangely called "Holiday Ornaments." Until recently, even the "Christmas Balls" on O'Reilly's own portion of the site, and the FOX "Christmas Balls" were called "Holiday Balls." Do I smell the offensive scent of hypocrisy wafting off of the commercial offal heap that is FOX's so-called "News Operation?"
Moreover, I question the reality perceived by these individuals whom I might describe as: "homophones of residents of the Isle of Crete." If one looks at recent court rulings, municipalities actually have MORE latitude to erect sectarian Christmas displays, as long as they also include things like a secular plastic Snowman and Tree as well, than they had during the 90s. Did I mention that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, guarantor of the right to exercise negative racial bias in hiring and promotion, self-described opponent of Roe v. Wade, and defender of in school proselytizers of public grade school children, wrote one of these pro-Christmas rulings? (NJ v. Schundler) Is anyone surprised at how this issue of the "War on Christmas" is suddenly the right-wing cause celebré in advance of Alito's confirmation hearings? Does anyone doubt an increasingly marginalized Bush Administration with poll numbers in the 30's would try to use Christmas as political smokescreen, that no-one could seemingly in fairness oppose, to hide issues of real import that are pummeling the President's numbers; a position that, at the same time, seeks to also galvanize their core constituency into lock-step support of Judge Alito's nomination? Rememember, these are the same guys whose campaign brought us those requests for the mailing lists of 1600 Pennsylvania churches during the 2004 Presidential election.
Let's be honest about this, Alito is an unabashed apologist for whatever policy the majority happens to whim. He even wrote a dissenting opinion in one case that, if it had been the opinion, would have ostensibly allowed prayer in school if the students voted for it. He sees Constitutional limits on the power of government or the actions of individuals as extremely narrowly circumscribed.
But I see an 800 pound gorilla in all this discussion of the "War on Christmas," and it's a particularly OLD and UGLY 800 pound gorilla. What's really going on is not a "War on Christmas" but a "War Against Tolerance and Diversity" - a war against those who are different from ourselves, or more specifically different from the majority, and this hype over the holiday season eventuating an attack on Christmas is just another battle in that larger war. The fact is that no court or government has limited private individuals in their Christmas displays, no-one has been arrested or fined for saying "Merry Christmas," nor have the courts, or government more broadly, limited the rights of any church/congregation to hold Christmas services or put sectarian displays on their property. What the courts have said is that the majority cannot simply expect the government they elect to be able to display and endorse the religious beliefs of those who elect them. To do so, would infringe on the rights of the minority and make them outsiders. The courts have essentially said, you can't simply spend tax dollars or use government property for these displays because the tax dollars supporting this come from Christians and non-Christians alike.
The reality is that this is all simply another side-battle in the larger "culture wars." On one side, traditionalist white Christians predominate, whose concept of the United States is axiomatically that of a white, northern European descended, Christian nation. Those on that side believe that, instead of diversity and protecting the minority, we should be encouraging the minority to simply accept the same viewpoint and cultural values, even if that means using state power and money to do so. These are often the same people who see immigrants from non-European lands as alien and threatening to the jobs of "real Americans." On the other side of the issue, we see many of differing religions, a polyglot of cultural backgrounds, and even some atheists. They are those who believe that this nation's strength and future prosperity has always lay in its ability to: assimilate diversity, draw upon the strengths and uniqueness of varying cultures, incorporate new values/cultural traditions, and become stronger thereby. In the final analysis, it is a classic political rearguard action of a majoritarian coalition that is facing change protected by the Constitution. It is the cry of those looking for a pastoral utopian all-Christian-all-the-time America which never existed, as they see the status quo ante threatened by change they don't understand, dislike, and even fear. Reactionary political movements like this always threaten the freedom of the individual and must be opposed by anyone who truly supports the true core American values of tolerance and freedom.
Additionally, if FOX and its ilk TRULY believed in the meaning and spirit of Christmas, they would be opposing the utter commercialism of the Holiday/Christmas Season by refusing to be a part of the commercialization of Christmas. I wouldn't suggest anyone holding their breath. FOX's own website and shows send exactly the opposite message, endorsing and supporting that over-commercialisation, to the detriment of the real human and/or sectarian message of Christmas and Christ, in almost every conceivable sense.
Lastly, to be linguistically and philosophically whole, I must ask: "what is so offensive about the phrase 'Happy Holidays'"? Christmas IS a Holiday during the "Holiday Season." From a simply logical standpoint, if Christmas is a subset of the set of holidays, saying "Happy Holidays" during the season in which Christmas occurs, implicitly means, among other things: "Merry Christmas." Just don't expect the neanderthals wearing reactionary blinders, as they fight the cultural war of their generation, to understand that.
Merry Christmas AND Happy Holidays to all!
Keith
"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys"
But, ok, let's discuss this shall we?
First out of the box, I should mention that FOX's own online store sells "Christmas Ornaments" strangely called "Holiday Ornaments." Until recently, even the "Christmas Balls" on O'Reilly's own portion of the site, and the FOX "Christmas Balls" were called "Holiday Balls." Do I smell the offensive scent of hypocrisy wafting off of the commercial offal heap that is FOX's so-called "News Operation?"
Moreover, I question the reality perceived by these individuals whom I might describe as: "homophones of residents of the Isle of Crete." If one looks at recent court rulings, municipalities actually have MORE latitude to erect sectarian Christmas displays, as long as they also include things like a secular plastic Snowman and Tree as well, than they had during the 90s. Did I mention that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, guarantor of the right to exercise negative racial bias in hiring and promotion, self-described opponent of Roe v. Wade, and defender of in school proselytizers of public grade school children, wrote one of these pro-Christmas rulings? (NJ v. Schundler) Is anyone surprised at how this issue of the "War on Christmas" is suddenly the right-wing cause celebré in advance of Alito's confirmation hearings? Does anyone doubt an increasingly marginalized Bush Administration with poll numbers in the 30's would try to use Christmas as political smokescreen, that no-one could seemingly in fairness oppose, to hide issues of real import that are pummeling the President's numbers; a position that, at the same time, seeks to also galvanize their core constituency into lock-step support of Judge Alito's nomination? Rememember, these are the same guys whose campaign brought us those requests for the mailing lists of 1600 Pennsylvania churches during the 2004 Presidential election.
Let's be honest about this, Alito is an unabashed apologist for whatever policy the majority happens to whim. He even wrote a dissenting opinion in one case that, if it had been the opinion, would have ostensibly allowed prayer in school if the students voted for it. He sees Constitutional limits on the power of government or the actions of individuals as extremely narrowly circumscribed.
But I see an 800 pound gorilla in all this discussion of the "War on Christmas," and it's a particularly OLD and UGLY 800 pound gorilla. What's really going on is not a "War on Christmas" but a "War Against Tolerance and Diversity" - a war against those who are different from ourselves, or more specifically different from the majority, and this hype over the holiday season eventuating an attack on Christmas is just another battle in that larger war. The fact is that no court or government has limited private individuals in their Christmas displays, no-one has been arrested or fined for saying "Merry Christmas," nor have the courts, or government more broadly, limited the rights of any church/congregation to hold Christmas services or put sectarian displays on their property. What the courts have said is that the majority cannot simply expect the government they elect to be able to display and endorse the religious beliefs of those who elect them. To do so, would infringe on the rights of the minority and make them outsiders. The courts have essentially said, you can't simply spend tax dollars or use government property for these displays because the tax dollars supporting this come from Christians and non-Christians alike.
The reality is that this is all simply another side-battle in the larger "culture wars." On one side, traditionalist white Christians predominate, whose concept of the United States is axiomatically that of a white, northern European descended, Christian nation. Those on that side believe that, instead of diversity and protecting the minority, we should be encouraging the minority to simply accept the same viewpoint and cultural values, even if that means using state power and money to do so. These are often the same people who see immigrants from non-European lands as alien and threatening to the jobs of "real Americans." On the other side of the issue, we see many of differing religions, a polyglot of cultural backgrounds, and even some atheists. They are those who believe that this nation's strength and future prosperity has always lay in its ability to: assimilate diversity, draw upon the strengths and uniqueness of varying cultures, incorporate new values/cultural traditions, and become stronger thereby. In the final analysis, it is a classic political rearguard action of a majoritarian coalition that is facing change protected by the Constitution. It is the cry of those looking for a pastoral utopian all-Christian-all-the-time America which never existed, as they see the status quo ante threatened by change they don't understand, dislike, and even fear. Reactionary political movements like this always threaten the freedom of the individual and must be opposed by anyone who truly supports the true core American values of tolerance and freedom.
Additionally, if FOX and its ilk TRULY believed in the meaning and spirit of Christmas, they would be opposing the utter commercialism of the Holiday/Christmas Season by refusing to be a part of the commercialization of Christmas. I wouldn't suggest anyone holding their breath. FOX's own website and shows send exactly the opposite message, endorsing and supporting that over-commercialisation, to the detriment of the real human and/or sectarian message of Christmas and Christ, in almost every conceivable sense.
Lastly, to be linguistically and philosophically whole, I must ask: "what is so offensive about the phrase 'Happy Holidays'"? Christmas IS a Holiday during the "Holiday Season." From a simply logical standpoint, if Christmas is a subset of the set of holidays, saying "Happy Holidays" during the season in which Christmas occurs, implicitly means, among other things: "Merry Christmas." Just don't expect the neanderthals wearing reactionary blinders, as they fight the cultural war of their generation, to understand that.
Merry Christmas AND Happy Holidays to all!
Keith
"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together guys"
posted by Keith | 12/11/2005 07:35:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home