The secular sanitization of Christmas

Great Debates
41

I was wrong to put Hanukkah in my statement about 200 years of tradition of public celebration in this country. I fully accept that the Hanukkah aspect of the end-of-December public holiday celebration is not nearly so entrenched as the Christmas aspect, nor has it been celebrated nearly as long. It certainly hasn’t seemed excluded in recent years, however.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but does not the term “Judeo-Christian” refer to a portion of Christian faith being interwoven with Jewish faith (the O.T.)?

Wanna talk about the bark on one tree, or you wanna talk about the forest?

Eighty-five percent of Americans say they are Christian. In the last ten years or so, all of a sudden, some people in the minority have apparently become offended by the trappings of one of the majority’s favorite holidays.

So, what happened? Please share with me anecdotes about how Christmas made you feel offended or intimidated. And how the effort to quash it in public places needed to be stepped up to include Christmas trees, “Jingle Bells,” Santa and Rudolph, because they were so scary and oppressive.

And how the world will be a much better place when people drive or walk through their downtowns with late December looking no different on their streetlamps or in their parks than any other time of the year.

Which brings me to another question: Why are more secular Christmas decorations OK? Decorations on streetlamps, lighted up City Hall windows, candy cane, ribbon, toy soldier decorations, etc.?

Because it’s easier for non-believers to kid themselves that they aren’t trappings associated with Christmas? Sorry; they are. So, why isn’t that just as offensive?

The holiday being celebrated on Dec. 25 is a Christian holiday. Any decorations on public property of any kind that are out-of-the-ordinary and are festive that go up specifically at that time of year are in connection with the celebration of a Christian holiday.

I’ve been told that’s unconstitutional.

So, why can my city hall have twinkle lights?

42

I never said Christmas has made me feel offended or intimidated. I just stepped into this thread to keep you from propagating a poor rendition of history.

Since you asked, though, I’d say that Christmas trees should be an acceptable part of a government-sponsored display, as they are nearly everywhere in this country. (I’ve been to Eugene many times; it’s hardly representative of the rest of the US.) And I don’t see anything wrong with singing Jingle Bells, either.

But these are secular trappings, dating more from meaningless vestiges of winter solstice festivals than from any deliberate contemporary integration into the Christian celebration. (Of course, they were deliberately integrated in the past…) The name of this thread is “the secular sanitization of Christmas.” Arguably, Christmas was secularly sanitized the day Christians allowed–hell, encouraged–the inclusion of pagan symbols into their Christ-festival.

So what’s your point? Is it that Christmas trees are secular or that they aren’t? If they are, then their exclusion (while silly) is hardly making the holiday less secular, is it? And if they aren’t, then you should understand why people might not want their government to be displaying symbols which overtly favor the celebration of one festival–however historically conflated–over others.

In my opinion, it would all be a lot easier if we just accepted that Christmas has become a wholly secular holiday. Candy canes and mistletoe rather than nativity scenes and angels. Jesus wasn’t born in December anyway.

43

sigh I didn’t want to get pulled into this thread.

I misstated my position in my last post: Christmas hasn’t become a wholly secular holiday, as there are millions and millions of Americans who observe the Christian aspects of the season. All Christmas decorations which aren’t explicitly Christian, however, have become wholly secular–Christmas lights, Christmas trees, Christmas wreaths, eggnog, exchanging presents, Christmas ornaments, sleigh-rides, garlands and tinsel, stockings, Santa, the damn reindeer.

Because of this…

…This statement simply isn’t true. The holiday being celebrated on December 25th is most emphatically not solely a Christian holiday.

You seem to be arguing two points here. You say that it’s silly for people to be offended over Christmas trees. I agree, but who are we to speak for other people. Cities should be free to handle their affairs as they see fit, within bounds of the state and national constitutions. You also say that people need to realize that Christmas is for Christians–and not only Christmas, but any public holiday celebration at the end of December! That’s just a bit ridiculous, Milo. C’mon.

44

Whenever I read these kind of debates, I always think of a bit Chris Rock did on Saturday Night Live back when the MLK holiday was being created and some people were all in a tizzy. The essence of the thing was “Look, we’re not asking you to do anything. You don’t have to do anything ‘black.’ Just don’t go to work. Sleep late. Go bowling. We don’t give a rat’s ass what you do. Just don’t go to work. Is that so much to ask?”

In the same way, I fail to grasp how emotionally mature people get all worked up over stuff like this. I mean, I agree that government should not endorse any religion. But fer cryin’ out loud, to get your panties all in a wedge because the city throws out a tree and a “Merry Christmas” sign seems to me to be just silly.

“But it’s government money!!!” Sheez. I’d reckon that in places like Eugene and Fresno (which the OP references). The city might drop a few hundred bucks, maybe a couple thousand, per annum on Holiday decorations. What kind of infentesimal percentage of their budget is that? The City of Fresno surely spends that much on cleaning the Mayor’s private office bathroom. Would non-holiday observers feel better if they got a 3/8ths of a cent refund on their taxes?

Look, we’re all for against diversity. Happy Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Diwali, Solstice, Chinese New Year, whatever. If my city wants to drop a few bucks out of their multi-million dollar budget on putting up decorations for Ramadan, that’s swell. It’ll make my city’s Muslim population happy. That’s nice. Relatively few things a government does have such a close time-and-effort-expended to citizen-satisfaction ratio.
What bugs me is this idea that law and political principle are more important than things like common sense and consideration. I am convinced that no system of laws, however well composed, will hold a society together if its citizens insist upon being asses to one another.

We’re not talking about getting a job, or being able to walk into public facilties, or anything that is causing anyone harm. We’re talking about a few colored lightbulbs and some tinfoil.

Look, my city could have an annual tradition of using tax money to give everybody in town a slice of cherry pie on a certain day. And then I complain that this is discriminatory because it disadvantages people allergic to cherries. Am I right? Legally, yes. But I’m going to ruin a fun tradition for everybody else, that does me no harm, that benefits the community spirit for a minimal government investment, just because I personally am not able to enjoy that tradition on an equal footing with everybody else. In short, I’m putting my wants above those of the community and being a selfish ass.
If you want some non-majority holiday officially recognized, I strongly suspect that most government officials would be willing to grant you equal, or at very least proportionate, time.

And if you don’t like the holidays, don’t celebrate them. Nobody’s gonna come to your house and make you sing carols and drink egg nog. You can sleep in. Go golfing. Rent a stack of porno videos. We don’t care. Just don’t ruin it for the rest of us. Is that so much to ask?

45

Anyone else find these comments amusing? Sorry if you think I took them out of context Milo.

I’m still not sure why your beliefs/preferences are more legitimate than mine, especially when you have very few restrictions on how you can choose to privately sponsor and express your beliefs.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by furt

That’s easy to say. But how likely is it going to be? And how do you accomodate the wishes of those who have legitimate reasons to find all expressions of belief in the supernatural offensive? Tho some may not like it, such nonbelief is every bit as legitimate, and protected, as the most fervent Christian’s belief.

Unfortunately, this is one of those issues leads to extremism on both sides, as demonstrated by your “Jingle Bells” example, instead of reasonable compromise. And people and groups on both sides adopt positions and demand concessions, not as expressions of their ultimate goals, but as steps towards some more extreme, unstated goal. Like I said above, I find creches pretty. But that is my personal opinion, and I won’t force it upon anyone else, whatever their beliefs. Sorry you don’t feel similarly motivated.

How about designating a public space for anyone’s expression of belief throughout the year? And you give equal space and prominence to EVERYONE who wishes to participate. Same treatment for the nativity, as the menorrah, as the “God is a myth” display. But, the individuals establish the display, not the state. (I know, this isn’t a new idea, and I apologize for being to lazy this morning to pull the precedents.)

46

Huh?

I’m saying any festive trappings that are put up by a local government at this time of year are being put up because it’s the holidays – you know, THE HOLY DAYS. They can call it “winter festival” if they want to, but more than three-quarters of the population isn’t feeling festive at the end of December because they have to shovel their driveways and scrape ice off their car windows.

Yes, I think it’s ridiculous that anyone would object to firemen putting a Christmas tree in their fire hall. And as I’ve said, anything that goes into specificity beyond a nativity scene or angels would be pushing it. Hell, I’ll even grant you that some might find nativity scenes inappropriate for public property, although I personally disagree with that.

Where does it end, though? If the reason why this has to be done is that the constitution says so, my city hall having a sign saying “Happy Holidays” is breaking the law. Because what, exactly, are the holidays at the end of December? Sure, they aren’t going into specifics, but what are they talking about?

I’m failing to grasp how it can still be done, and still centered around “holy days,” as long as it’s all vague and wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

If the law is the explanation, why wouldn’t it be all or nothing?

“Because we’ve secularized Christmas” seems to be the answer. How?

I don’t think I ever said they are more legitimate than yours. In fact, I think I made reference to the fact that a community of Satanists could spend money on Satanic rituals in their parks, if the citizenry supported it. So long as they didn’t disallow other religions from practicing their beliefs.

Glad I gave you a laugh (for whatever reason), Dinsdale, but I’m still wondering what happened circa the 1980s that made the regular practice of many decades something that needed to be stopped suddenly.

47

So, simple majority rule on all matters in every “community” (however you define community)? You sure that’s what you want?

I’d like to think it had something to do with increased public awareness of the need for tolerance, inclusiveness, and respect for diverse views, but I might be mistaken.

48

Are you just obstinately refusing to recognize that the seasonal holiday was secular for a lot longer than it was religious, or do you genuinely not understand it?

If you do not understand it, then ask yourself what wassail, Yule logs, evergreen trees, holly berries, Santa Claus, and snowmen have to do with the birth of Jesus Christ.

Gad’s right–you’re trying to have it both ways, both in the way that he mentions; and by stating outright “. . . as though the message of Christmas could be found offensive by anyone,” while implying that prohibiting creches in front of town halls destroys Christmas for everybody. So apparently, nonbelievers are kneejerk reactionaries who turn white at the sight of a fir tree; while believers who cannot possibly celebrate Christmas unless City Hall gets in on the act are not reactionaries.

Of course, all of that is also predicated on your absurdly reductionist argument that on one side are the believers and on the other are the nonbelievers. It might interest you to know that there are religious people, like, say, members of Americans United for Separation of Church and State who believe in Constitutional rights for everyone, not just 85% of everyone. (Their executive director, BTW, is a minister ordained by the United Church of Christ.)

BTW, what exactly is the message of Christmas?

49

I haven’t been remotely Christian for a number of years, but I used to be a good practicing Catholic girl and I always found public creches to be offensive, nearly sacreligious. Couldn’t have been my Catholic faith, Catholics have made a mint on plastic statues of the Virgin to stick to your dash. But something about forming the Virgin on of plastic and lighting her up with a 100 watt bulb (not to mention the stray dog marking Joseph as his territory) always struck me as JUST WRONG.

Now that I’m a good practicing Agnostic/Deist (oops, Unitarian), I just find them tacky, although my kids are getting to the age where we have to explain things to them. I hope to be able to raise my good Agnostics (sorry, Unitarians) with a respect for all religion, and an understanding of the seperation of Church and State - and thats easier if Baby Jesus doesn’t live outside the courthouse for a month ever year, or if they aren’t singing “Away in the Manger” in school (one of my favorite Christmas songs, and something they’ll be exposed to, but on my terms).

I have no problem with Christmas trees, Jingle Bells and lights.

50

**

Are you just obstinately refusing to recognize that for about as long as there’s been an America, Christmas has been a Christian holiday, or do you genuinely not understand it?

**

Or, we did something a certain festive way for a great many decades. Everyone in the community seemed pretty happy with it. Suddenly it changed, went away, at no one local’s request. No good reason for the change has been offered up. Just another way of looking at it.

BTW, I don’t think I passed any judgements on non-believers, only questioning the desire of some to secularly sanitize Christmas. Didn’t call anyone a “knee-jerk reactionary.” If that’s the conclusion you draw about what some are trying to do, I’m pleased and I agree.

Never implied any such thing. Doesn’t destroy Christmas for any Christian. Just isn’t allowing most to have the festive nature celebrated in their community the way they would like it to be.

When did recognition of one thing become disrespect for other things? Is that what “tolerance, inclusiveness, and respect for diverse views” is about? Keep things bland, to avoid the possibility that one gets more “play” than another?

Want to address the question of how any community acknowledgement of “holidays” at the end of December is not violating the Constitution, as all of the holidays on record for the end of December are religious in nature in our recent history?

Could throw New Year’s in there, but they are referring to holidayS, plural.

51

Ah. That answers my question. It’s “A.”

Once again, Christmas was once illegal in parts of America, because the Puritans considered those holidays to be man-made and not ordained by God. I suspect you will once again choose to ignore this piece of information.

Or weren’t aware that they had Constitutional rights and legal redress, and that a wink-wink-nudge-nudge-it’s-such-a-little-thing violation of them is a violation nonetheless. Like having public money spent to promote religious celebrations.

“How could anybody be offended by the message of Christmas?” Puh-leeze. You’re turning in Stoidela, here.

Sometimes people don’t get everything they want, even if they are 85% of the community. Too bad.

::: sigh ::: No, they are not. Christmas has and always has had a secular component. Also, you are apparently under the impression that “holiday,” in contemporary usage, literally means “holy day.” So explain July 4th.

52

Some of this is off topic but it follows into the topic.

1.) America is NOT a christian nation. America allowed the expression of all religions and did not mandate a state religion. This is why christianity is so prevelent in America. Other christian denominations were allowed to pratice here without persecution. Any religion and the lack there of is permitted in America its called freedom.

2.) Early American Christians prohibited the celebration of Christmas. Remember Puritans didn’t allow any fun or celibration. The only place in the world that Christmas being celebrated at this time was Holand.

3.) Christmas IS a secular holiday and always has been. Nobody knows when Christ was born. They didn’t note birthdays at that time only death days. It wasn’t until the 4th Century (I think) that the Pope at the time determined that Chistmas would be celibrated at this time. The reason for this is to compete with the Pagan holiday Satranalis (sp) Its the winter solstice.

4.) There is a thing called separation of church and state. No public money or property can be used to endorse a religion. The state can either let all religions put up a sympol on the state property or no symbols but all items and labor must be provided by the religion and not the state.

5.) If you want to flaughnt your religion in public do it on your time, money, and property not every other citizen’s.

53

If you’re concerned that Christmas is being “secularly sanitized,” Milo, you’re implying that fir trees and all the other Christmas trappings are first and foremost Christian icons. Do you recognize that most of these things are pagan in origin, and were coopted by the Christians?

Let me quote myself:

You still haven’t come close to addressing that.

Like the holy day of Halloween, right? Wait, we don’t get work off on Halloween, so that must be the arbiter. So like the holy day of President’s Day, right? Like Phil said, “holiday” does not equal holy day in modern-day America. If you’ve got a problem with that, there’s a little group you might want to look into. They’re called the Seventh Day Adventists.

You make it sound like a non-Christian winter festival is something that’s been created out of whole cloth in recent years to sate the gaping maw of political correctness. Sorry, but you’re Wrongy Wrongerson on this one.

It might be better to ask yourself how the winter solstice was “religionized.” That’s a far more pertinent question.

Or, as Eddie Izzard says, you need to realize that Jesus wasn’t born to a big jolly guy in a red suit:

“And what would you like for Christmas, baby Jesus?”
“Peace on Earth, and goodwill towards men.”
“How about a clockwork train?”
“Oh yes, that’s much better. Forget peace on Earth, I don’t care.”

Here’s a hint: the Bible doesn’t say a damn thing about December 25.

54

Dinsdale, here’s a cite for you:

http://www.ffrf.org/news/solstice.html

As for the larger debate, others have said what I think much better than I could have said it. I just have a couple comments to add.

If you disagree with the state of the law in the United States, I can respect your position. But it seems some people refuse to acknowledge that current constitutional law forbids the government (at any level) from 1.) advancing or inhibiting religion; 2.) becoming excessively entangled with any religion. If you state that this is not the law, you are being willfully ignorant.

Here are a couple on-line pamphlets that address everything from the Lemon test to the “Christian Nation” argument.

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.html
http://www.au.org/myths.htm

Finally, I agree with others who have said you can’t have it both ways. If you believe that Christmas displays are trivial in impact, why is it such a big deal to ban them? On the other hand, if such displays are fundamental to the celebration of Christmas, well, then there is good reason for the government not to endorse them.

55

Gadarene - I acknowlege that Jesus wasn’t born on Dec. 25.

I acknowlege that, back around 1600 years ago, Christians “co-opted” the time of winter solstice as a day of celebration of Christ’s birth. As a way to try to convert more Romans to Catholicism, by coinciding the holiday with their harvest celebration.

I acknowlege that Christmas trees and some other trappings had their roots in paganism. So that means they aren’t representative of the Christian holiday Christmas for Christians? Nope, it doesn’t.

Yep, the Puritans didn’t want to celebrate Christmas. Other early colonists did, however. The celebration was actually rowdy and alcohol fueled in the earliest days of the country, as it tended to be in Europe. But it began to settle into a more religious, family-oriented event throughout the early to mid 1800s according to this site. (It seems to do a good job of the history aspect, but seems to de-emphasize the Christ and Christian aspect, as it is compiled by a Unitarian Universalist pastor.)

For those of you who want to claim Christmas is a holiday in the same way that Halloween and Independence Day are, what’s the etymology of the word, “Christmas?”

Anyone who refuses to acknowlege that Christmas has been celebrated as a Christian holiday in America for most of the country’s history, that it’s purpose is Christian in nature, is deluding themself.

Anyone who gave it a “secular component” was doing so on their own, notwithstanding the fact that the holiday’s American heritage is Christian.

If I declare Easter “Groucho-Nose Glasses Day,” that doesn’t mean I can expect the Pope to be wearing his on the balcony of St. Peter’s that Sunday morning.

Who’s erasing what history? Y’all seem to be erasing America’s view of what Christmas was from about at least 1870 to at least 1970 pretty well.

56

FWIW, while he makes the same argument as some in this thread that Christmas has evolved a sort of parallel secular component, apparently renowned Athiest and “Secular Humanist” Austin Cline says here that he believes Christmas is a Christian holiday. He’d like to either get it declared a secular holiday by the government, or have it removed as a government-recognized holiday altogether.

I should mention that I am finding this enlightening. I asked a question in my OP, and I am getting an answer.

I was under the impression that there wasn’t much hue and cry to white-wash the religious aspects out of public Christmas displays. Obviously I was wrong, judging by the segment of response here.

Not only do more than a few of you see it as the proper thing to do, you also seem to be vehement about it.

57

Replace Christmas with Halloween, replace Christian with Pagan.

“After all, the old gods used to be part of the holiday tradition, its only within the past several millenium that they’ve been supressed by the majority church.”

Now, you may be OK with state acknowledgement of the Celtic/Pagan/Wiccan celebration, and state dollars going to put the old gods and goddesses “back where they belong.” I’m not.

58

Except for the times that it wasn’t, eh? Or for the Christians for whom it wasn’t? They obviously don’t count, since gasp they didn’t celebrate Christmas!
Those heathens!

I can’t speak for others, but I’m always vehement when the government oversteps its bounds and violates my rights.

59

Y’know, for someone who wants to be taken seriously, misrepresenting other peoples’ positions as badly as this won’t help your case at all.

The segment of response here has not dealt chiefly with “white-washing the religious aspects out of public Christmas displays.” Your OP was not about “white-washing the religious aspects out of public Christmas displays.” Our vehemence has nothing much to do with our desire to “white-wash the religious aspects out of public Christmas displays.”

Unless, that is, you consider the common Christmas tree (coniferous Noelus) to be a religious aspect of Christmas, and except insofar as modern constitutional doctrine has said that the mayor can’t put “Christ is King” up on lights in front of City Hall. For the first of these, you’ve persistently refused to answer my question about whether you think Christmas trees are secular icons, I suppose in part because of the inherent contradiction it exposes in your argument, and for the second…well, what the hell is it lately with non-lawyer Dopers presuming to know better than the body of law built up by decades and decades of legal thought?

Many of us in this thread have agreed with you that, in our view, it’s silly to ban Christmas trees and Jingle Bells in the name of a non-denominational holiday. This was the thrust of the OP, and it seems to have been resolved with near-universal consensus. You’ve since expanded your complaint to encompass the secularization of a historically Christian holiday, along the lines of the Damn Atheists thread in the Pit, and made several wildly inaccurate characterizations in an attempt to bolster your argument. We are not impressed.

But no matter how weak your rhetorical ground may be, beating a tactical retreat along the lines of, “Gee, I didn’t realize you guys were so touchy!” (see quote above) just doesn’t hold much water. You’re trying to frame these as a disagreement among Dopers, while choosing not to acknowledge that the Supreme Court and (to all appearances) many of the Framers are among those participating in the “hue and cry” against government display of specifically Christian holiday paraphernalia.

In short, Milo, religious aspects of government Christmas displays are unconstitutional. Trees aren’t religious (unless you’re Het Masteen, I suppose). And as for the perception that the holiday season has become more emphatically secular in recent decades–to the degree that this perception is accurate, it’s likely a result of many different social factors, including the increasing commercialization of Christmas and a growing popular awareness as to the unconstitutionality of state-sponsored religious displays.

Okay?

60

Please tell me you don’t actually believe that. I have been hearing from various sources (most notably the venerable CBC radio), that in colonial times, Christmas was a time of drunken carousing, feasting, dancing and pulling of ribald pranks. Hardly “Jesus is the reason for the season” material, is it?
The secularization of Christmas started a long time ago, and to claim that Christians are the entire reason for its existence is ignorant.
The Hindu festival of Diwali is a celebration of light. Hannukah is called “the festival of lights”. The Folklore/Pagan story is that the end of December is when the Great Mother gives birth to the new Sun King, the Bringer of Light (Gee, does that story sound familiar? Hmmmm).
The existence of Christmas answers a human need to find light in the ever-growing darkness of the winter months. Just when things were their darkest (literally), humans created a festival to come together in good cheer, surround themselves with light and fend off the sadness and loneliness that the cold and the dark evoke in us.
Which probably would have happened whether a sinless woman gave birth to a carpenter in a stable, or not.