For those of you who know me, I am irreligious. I also celebrate Christmas. Is that a contradiction? No, it isn't. It would only be a contradiction if I celebrated the Mass of Christ. I celebrate Commercial (or American) Christmas.
Christmas is both a religious holiday and a national (Federal technically) holiday. If there's anything unfortunate about that, it's that they share the same name. They are different holidays and you can celebrate one or the other or both.
And it is here where we meet the first of the two sides of this Christmas War debate that I can't stand: The Conflationists. The Conflationists are people who insist that commercial (or folklore) symbols like Santa Claus, flying reindeer, decorated pine trees, candy canes, giftgiving, Frosty the Snowman, stockings, glittering colored lights, etc. are somehow connected to the religious observance of the birth of Jesus Christ. They're not. They have NOTHING to do with one and other. These are usually the people who are suing their local towns and boroughs over their Christmas displays or the fact that they're even using the word Christmas saying that they're offensive to their religious beliefs or that it violates the separation of Church and State. It doesn't. Those are secular symbols of the national holiday of Christmas. If anything, you're offending me as an American by trying to get rid of such displays. Commercial Christmas is for everyone of all faiths, creeds, races, and ethnicities. The holiday's cool like that in the same way that Thanksgiving, Independence Day, and Veterans' Day is to name a few. Commercial Christmas has evolved a bit over the years but it is every part of American tradition as is Thanksgiving. We may deride it for its crass consumerism, but it is still a holiday about family and generosity to others (even if it's only reserved for people you know). The fact that "Christ" is in the name is merely a coincidence as far as I'm concerned. It would probably be more rightly referred to as "Yule" but the songs have already been written so deal with it. Commercial Christmas can be celebrated by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, atheists, and everyone else I've left out because it's an AMERICAN holiday. You celebrate the coming together of family and goodwill towards men as AMERICANS, not as Christians and whatnot. So, to all the Conflationists who ignorantly insist that Santa Claus is somehow Jesus in a red suit...shut the fuck up. You don't know what you're talking about and you're only hurting people with your rhetoric. Now if there's a Nativity scene or a menorah or other religious symbols in this public display, that's different and yes, on the basis of the First Amendment, such displays should be removed from public lands.
The other side of the debate are The Shoehorners. These are religious Christians (and to a lesser extent Jews) who will offer up convoluted explanations for the commerical symbols of Christmas to show that they are in fact, religious symbols before arguing that we need to return to a purer observance one of the high holy Christian holidays. They are essentially the same as the Conflationists but are coming at the argument from a different angle. Instead of seeing two separate celebrations, they see only one and feel that the birth of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ must be a part of it (or in the case of the menorah displays, that we have to show regard for all religions or none at all). Sometimes it's really crass too. If you haven't heard the song in a while, give a listen to "Santa Claus is Coming to Town". However, the Shoehorners don't bother me nearly so much as the Conflationists because at least they're not trying to take away from people's celebration of Christmas, they just want those celebrations in the public square to be of a more religious nature (and not even necessarily a wholly religious one - it sometimes really feels like a "Hey! Don't forget about me!" nature). The problem that arises from this group is that their ignorance of (and possible refusal to accept) the national version of the holiday only serves to fuel the fiery passions of the Conflationists.
This all follows along basic historical trends. It's been pointed out many times that the birth of Christ could not possibly have happened on December 25th. The descriptions in the Bible tend to point more towards sometime in March. The truth is, we'll never know. Early Christianity was not particularly concerned with birth days. The important day was the day a saint was martyred or ascended into Heaven. Jesus's birth wasn't even celebrated early in this country. The Puritans didn't care for it and early Congresses even met on Christmas Day and thought nothing of it. The reason that the birth of Christ is celebrated when it is was not based on ignorance but rather strategy. All the old pagan religions put significance on the solstices and equinoxes. The Winter Solstice festivals were particularly important as it was a celestial bottom. The days from then on would grow longer and warmth would soon return. Now if you're a relatively new and easily persecuted religion, you don't go around celebrating your festivals on conspicuous days and conspicuous here will be defined as "you're the only ones celebrating something". No, you do it when something else is going on or you co-opt symbols in those festivals or both. For the Vernal Equinox, they were serving pastry buns already so putting a drizzle in the shape of a cross won't hurt. It's both branding and artistic. Celebrating the birth of your Lord and Savior during Saturnalia (Rome's Winter Solstice festival) helped to not make you stand out so much which is important when you're not in a favorable position with the State.
The same thing would happen again later but this time with the commercial version. It too co-opted an existing holiday and placed their own symbols in it alongside it so as to brand itself. Considering the holiest of Christian holidays, the Resurrection has also been commercialized and symbolized with a hare bearing decorated eggs, it could very well have been business interests trying to widen their sales bases back in the day. And like with Christmas, this holiday has its Conflationists and Shoehorners too. That I honestly don't know and am truly speculating...but then, so are all my rants here: unresearched rambling :-)
Either way, stop telling me I can't celebrate (Commercial) Christmas in schools and public squares you unAmerican douchebags!
ADDENDUM: I suppose it could also be argued that there must be two separate Christmases anyway since it is in fact a Federal holiday and has been so since 1870. If the First Amendment prohibits the Federal government from endorsing any particular religion, then the Federal holiday of Christmas must be a secular one or else it would be unConstitutional, right? That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :-) Even though it was very likely that it was rooted in the Christian holy day, it has clearly since changed. "In God We Trust" was added to this nation's coins in 1864 for clearly religious reasons, but the motto has since been ruled to be a form of "ceremonial deism" which is considered to be not a religious endorsement by the Supreme Court. So the way I take it is that something can start off on the wrong foot in this country, it can come to mean something else, and then later not be judged for its original intent but rather by its current meaning. Therefore, American Christmas is a secular holiday which can celebrated by all.
Merry Christmas EVERYBODY °<|:-D>
No comments:
Post a Comment