As a completely secular Jewish person, I don’t appreciate the implications. But you’re welcome to continue Christplaning.
The only implication here is that you have no idea what either secular, or Christian, or both, mean, and if one of my statements displayed that kind of ignorance, I’d not appreciate it being public knowledge either.
Unlike “Jewish”, “Christian” isn’t both a religion and an ethnicity. Something can’t be both secular and Christian, the way someone can be a non-religious Jew (except for a small set of “atheist Christians”, but those clearly aren’t the only Christians being referenced in the phrase “Christian holidays”, the broader Christian faith is clearly the referent).
Christian isn’t an ethnicity, but it is certainly a culture (more accurately a while boatload of different related cultures). If you think America isn’t steeped in Christian culture, I don’t know what to tell you.
I think America is steeped in Christian religion, and most Americans are Christians.
But “Christian culture” is not the right name for general American culture. There are American Christian cultures/subcultures, but that doesn’t make everything American “Christian”. which is what you’re implying.
A whole lot of stuff is just secular - regardless of how Christian the people doing it are, if they’re not treating it like a religious practice, it’s not “Christian culture”. Call me when people start asking their tree toppers to intercede with Jesus on their behalf.
I can link Wikipedia too:
More specifically,
It’s pretty ironic how you criticize Max_S for being a white guy who can’t comprehend the experience of racial minorities, yet here you are confidently Christplaining the experience of non-Christians.
Can you also read it?
For some people, the Christian religious observances of All Hallows’ Eve, including attending church services and lighting candles on the graves of the dead, remain popular, although for others it is a secular celebration
I bolded the relevant bits you seem to have skipped over. Since it’s clear the “others” outnumber the “some” in Western society (it is clear, isn’t it? $10.14 billion doesn’t spend itself,) even allowing for overlap, clinging to the notion of Halloween as a religious holiday is just … like I said, entrenched.
It’s amusing how you think you’re the only non-Christian in this exchange. Well, it would be amusing if I hadn’t explicitly mentioned my non-Christianity multiple times.
OK so Christmas, Halloween and Thanksgiving all have Christian origins.
But today, in America at least, all are mostly secularized.
If you refuse to do Christmas due to it’s Christian origins, then you should do that same for the other two.
Christmas and Halloween more so than Thanksgiving, which was always a national holiday but which was created during a time when it was assumed everyone who is part of the nation is Christian, so close enough.
Again, some more so than others, but yes.
I don’t refuse to celebrate any of them; I know many observant Jewish Americans who celebrate Thanksgiving but not the other two. And quite a few less observant Jewish Americans who celebrate Halloween as well, but not Christmas. And some secular Jewish Americans who celebrate all three.
Why do you feel the need to tell people how they should or should not feel about holidays?
This is a huge lump of excluded middle fallacy you’ve got here, MrDibble. Just because an angel figurine on a Christmas tree is not explicitly revered as an actual supernatural being doesn’t mean it carries zero Christian significance.
You really are denying and erasing the experience of American Jews here. I can tell you, as someone brought up in a mixed-marriage family with one Christian and one Jewish parent, that our completely secular celebration of Christmas did not mean that we perceived all its symbols as equally “de-Christianized”.
Christmas trees and presents and stars and greenery and “Deck the Halls”, fine. Nativity scenes and angel figurines and “O Little Town of Bethlehem”, not fine. No matter how much you insist that it doesn’t count as “Christian” unless it’s being used in an actual act of worship, even as children we got the very clear unspoken message that that sort of thing was too “Christiany” for a part-Jewish family’s Christmas.
(Same with Easter. Egg hunts and candy and new clothes and bunnies and baby chicks, sure. Cakes baked in the shape of a lamb or palm branches or even Easter lilies, nope nope nope.)
“Carries Christian significance” =/= “is a religious icon”. The significance that Xmas tee angels carry is in their origin, not their role in religious observance.
No, I’m saying the experience of American Jews doesn’t signify as to how the majority of Americans feel about Christmas tree decorations.
No, I’m saying it doesn’t count as religious. I’m not denying that (those specific) angels, or hymns are Christian symbols in origin, as opposed to Buddhist or atheist. I’m denying that displaying them is a religious act.
…and you don’t see how that doesn’t necessarily map onto how religious non-Jews see these things as being? That while you see them as ‘too “Christiany”’, most see them as background, not worship.
Moved goalposts. The claim you made that started this disagreement was
Yes, there is a valid rationale for non-Christians objecting to Christmas on the grounds of its religious roots. Because people who live in a majority-Christian society as part of a non-Christian minoritized identity group don’t always have the privilege of dismissing Christian symbolism as mere secularized background noise.
Your excluded middle is showing again. Traditional Christian symbols can and do connote Christian religious significance, and the cultural normalization of Christianity, even when their display is not part of an overtly religious act.
The point is that many American non-Christians don’t like being expected to just blithely accept Christian religious symbols as neutral “background”. Even if they’re not being used for actual worship, such symbols are continuing to normalize the assumption of Christianity as the universal shared cultural context. People who grew up in Christian traditions, even if they now self-describe as “completely non-religious”, have the privilege of ignoring the ways in which this background differs from genuine secularism.
Like most people who grew up in Christian communities in overwhelmingly Christian societies, you naively imagine that if Christian symbolism isn’t being deployed in actual acts of worship, then it’s just neutral “background” that carries zero religious significance. But a lot of non-Christian religious minorities can see the Christian-culture bias inherent in that “background”. And it’s not because, as you patronizingly suggest, we can’t tell the difference between Christian symbolism used in actual rites of worship and Christian symbolism slopping over onto other parts of culture that are not religious rites.
FFS, dude, you’re expecting non-Christian Americans to treat the iconography of Christian angels etc. as a neutral de-religionized element of a shared secular holiday, even though in your next breath you can point out how Max_S is wrong in expecting Black Americans to treat the iconography of the white Founding Fathers as a neutral de-racialized element of shared cultural identity?
To paraphrase your own words: “You don’t see how that doesn’t necessarily map onto how American non-Blacks see these things as being? That while you see them as ‘too “slavey”’, most see them as background, not racial oppression.”
There’s a rationale, but I don’t consider it valid: “Christmas, as the majority of society celebrates it, is now entirely secular”. Given that stance, I don’t consider objecting to the roots of it as a valid objection to its existence as a holiday now.
Cultural normalization, sure. Religious significance? Naah.
Unless, by including “overtly” in there, you’re saying that this is actually covert religious practice. Which is, quite frankly, conspiracy theory territory, so I don’t think that’s what you’re saying. If it’s not religious practice (overt or covert) then it’s not religiously significant.
Your view seems to be that they reinforce a Christian-only cultural context. My view is that they indicate that Christianity is a part of the shared cultural context, which, yes, it is. And sure, that’s “normalization” - so what? No-one’s required to celebrate these holidays, so it’s not like anyone’s religious freedom is being touched by the normalization of now-secularized symbols.
So it looks to me your objection is to any whiff of a hint of a suggestion that Christianity is part of the shared cultural context, which is, in my non-Christian-raised theological noncognitivist view, just ridiculously extreme.
“Christian-culture bias”? What is that, exactly, other than a description of the mere pervasiveness of Christian symbolism? Are you of the view that seeing these symbols is forcing you to engage in involuntary religious worship? Or that the normalization of these symbols prevents you from displaying Jewish ones?
I agree that Western society is steeped in Christianity, that its symbols and iconography are everywhere around us. I’m also quite emphatically non-religious. And yet I still fail to see the actual problem of modern secularized Christmas existing just because it retains non-practice Christian trappings. Not being forced on anyone, but just existing.
Again with this bullshit, that I’ve explicitly said is not the case. I do not come from a “Christian community”, I come from a very mixed-religion community, in fact more Muslim than not. My high school stopped for Friday prayers, FFS.
That’s not what I was saying. I said when they don’t do that, he’s wrong to call them not part of the same nation. I’m not talking about some perceived aspect, I’m talking about actual practice. You know, like how the actual practice of Christmas is largely secular.
The difference, of course, being that the non-Blacks are wrong here, but the religious non-Jews are not. Because slavery was racial oppression, but Chrismas tree angels are in no way worship.
Also, interesting that you map my “worship” onto your “racial oppression”. Mere worship is not religious oppression, but it’s telling that you seem to think the mere presence of Christian worship in public is some form of oppression…
There’s a world of difference between actual slavery and a tree trinket. In fact, the comparison is pretty damn odious.
How tautological of you. “I’m right because I’m right while you are wrong because you are wrong”.
Merely “honoring your heritage” by flying the Confederate Flag is, to hear Southerners talk about it, a completely deracialized display of pride in their southern heritage. I don’t buy what they peddle, and I don’t buy what you peddle, either.
Yup. It’s exactly the back-of-the-head assumptions that are the problem.
Good luck, though, Kimstu. We appear to be dealing with somebody who can’t tell the difference between saying that angels are a Christian religious symbol and saying that Christians worship tree ornaments.
That is just plain not true. (Maybe it is in, say, Japan. That I don’t know. But it is most certainly not true in the USA.)
Because people buy Christmas presents doesn’t mean they’re not also celebrating a religious holiday.
I think you’re one of them.
And the major flaw in it.
Categorization is useful for some purposes. Thinking that because it’s useful for some purposes those nice neat lines actually exist, and that they couldn’t just as well be drawn in other places or removed altogether for purposes for which that’s more useful, is a problem.
Can’t be done.
U.S. history does not exist in a vacuum, separate from all the rest of the world.
Now because in a given year’s course of study (or a lifetime’s, for that matter) it’s not possible to discuss all at once everything that ever happened everywhere in the world, particular courses concentrate on a selection. But by its very nature, such selection leaves things out. It’s necessary to do so, but it’s also necessary to realize that this is happening, to recognize that to some extent the lines being drawn are arbitrary, and to re-evaluate from time to time what the selection for a given course ought to be.
What the actual fuck are you talking about? If you were actually interested in a good faith discussion, you wouldn’t resort to such blatant strawmen.
You’d prefer if I referenced some sort of Christian One-Drop Rule instead? Because that’s the position you and others have taken - the slightest stain of religious iconography renders a holiday Christian, and it can never be secular thereafter , just like One Drop renders you Black or being anywhere near a girl is going to give you cooties.
And the person throwing around sneering terms like “Christsplaining” doesn’t exactly have standing to tell me what is and isn’t “good faith discussion”
You’ve got it backwards. The holiday in question is fundamentally and explicitly Christian, which is why it still has all the explicitly Christian religious iconography associated with it.
Such a holiday can become completely secularized, precisely by removing all the explicitly religious iconography from it. Then you’re left with just the presents and trees and wreaths and snowflakes etc.
But when you leave in Christian religious iconography like angels and Nativity scenes and hymns about baby Jesus, even if you intend them as nothing but decoration with no theological or ritual purpose whatsoever, then you’ve got a holiday that is incompletely secularized.
Nope: Christmas, as the majority of society celebrates it, is now largely secular. There’s a difference. And that difference is why many non-Christians object to Christian trappings of Christmas being included as part of a nominally “secular” and “universal” festival, even if the people who include them “don’t mean anything religious” by them.
They are also engaging in actual religious activities.
(Note: the first part of that quote is from me, the second is MrDibble answering me. I can’t find my original quote now in either this thread or the one this was split off from, though it may be somewhere in one or both of them.)
So those of us living in the USA are living in a country in which a significant portion of the population is actively arguing that the USA is specifically a Christian nation; that children ought to be taught that in school; and they are voting on that basis, to try to impose laws on the country as a whole which are based on the religious beliefs of their specific sects of Christianity.
That is not in the least the position anyone in this discussion has taken. You’re arguing with a drastic misrepresentation of what I and others have said.
Two things can be true at once. It can be true that many people treat Christmas as just a festive occasion, with parties, and gifts, and decorations. It can also be true that many people treat Christmas as a major religious holiday, with religious services mandatory, and all secular activities distinctly secondary.
Things that cannot be true is that Christmas is treated as purely secular in America. It cannot be true that no Christians want to impose their religious feelings about Christmas upon others.
There are many things that seep into your bones as an American. If you are a woman you will always see a male dominated culture in ways that males can never understand. If you are gay you will always see a straight dominated culture in ways that straights will never understand. If you are not a Christian you will always see a Christian dominated culture in ways that Christians will never understand. As for blacks… Just imagine an argument that said that blackness was not an issue in society any longer. Try to imagine it. Just for a second.
I have never been Christian for a moment in my life. Christmas is, has been, and will always be a Christian holy day that has taken on secular aspects but only grudgingly so that non-Christians can never be allowed to forget that it is the holy day of the majority, ruling culture. That is in my bones and can never leave me.