Charles Krauthammer recently wrote a column about how we need to "all just relax about Christmas." It is in response to what Frank Rich feels is a false controversy over how Christmas is under attack because of some isolated incidents dealing with its religious aspects. Such concern by the way is honestly held by various individuals, and not just the stereotypical masses.
For instance, Ben Witherington is a widely published writer on religious topics with a doctorate in his field as well as a current book entitled The Gospel Code (a take off of The DaVinci Code). The book does not only put forth a passionate defense (if a bit confused*) of orthodoxy, but clearly feels that it is currently under dangerous attack from modernist forces.
Care must be given to such strongly held beliefs, especially if you are threatened by them. For instance, in response to an editorial about keeping the faith in doubt, one letter writer responded:
As a Midwestern Presbyterian deacon, I am much more comfortable with John Horgan's unbeliever than with the rigid evangelical theology that seemed to fuel this year's presidential election. It is not just the unbelievers who feel beleaguered; progressive Christians feel that way, too. I certainly do not want evangelicals to teach their view of creation to my children in a classroom and then have them contradict me in Sunday school.
An election won by Time's man of the year -- there not being separate categories for the good and bad versions.
Krauthammer is on the side of those who feels that "The attempts to de-Christianize Christmas are as absurd as they are relentless." Such attempts are also deemed both sad and a sign of "profound ungenerosity" because of how open and generous the majority are to the minority religions in this country. This includes how a minor Jewish holiday was stretched in importance by the public to provide a companion to Christmas. Such generosity just goes to show how little those at fault here have to worry about, and anyhow, it is only those no longer truly strongly attached to their religious traditions that really feel threatened anyhow.
Well, it's easy for me to find Krauthammer's commentary distasteful, but he hits upon some commonly held beliefs here. It is somehow deemed overly generous to speak about our "Judeo-Christian" traditions, providing the Jews a sort of shared top billing, if not quite seriously accepting them as equal partners.
It is a partnership that many Jews do not quite want, and one that those of other faiths (combined more numerous than Jews, surely in various areas) might find a bit lacking. Other faiths, along with many Christians themselves, who would find it insulting that Krauthammer finds their involvement in various lawsuits and so forth against mixing church and state too much at this time of year is a sign that their connections to their faith and traditions are weak.
The level of religious freedom in this country is surely worthy of great respect and praise, but its very success means that there continues to be ongoing conflicts of a religious flavor. Many countries would love this sort of low level conflict, which is a sign of freedom and openness, but some find it threatening. And, for those who find the sort of debates referenced by the columnist silly, I wonder if they thought it fine when it was common practice to have Christmas pageants in public school that re-enacted the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ.
I reckon many would, and perhaps certain Jewish students can provide quite realistic performances as they re-enact the origins of another religion. We aren't just talking about Christmas carols here, though opposition to them should not surprise some fundamentalist parents who find Halloween threatening on religious grounds.
It is ironic that some are crying that a few people are trying to take "Christ" out of "Christmas," when the majority have mostly done that a long time ago. The commercialization of the holiday, mixed with its use of pagan symbols, and maybe even its very origins (the dating, not likely to be Jesus' birth, matched Winter Solstice holidays of yore) perhaps is why some are a bit touchy about the perceived challenging of the remaining religious aspects of the holiday. The non-Christ aspects of the holiday surely suggests "Happy Holidays" might just be the best greeting, even without its catholic flavor.
As to carols, an issue in a few locales of tens of thousands, 'tis generally fine: just truly honor fine music wherever it might be found. And, government sponsored displays? Well, I still think it's just good to keep out the religious symbolism, but that includes the menorah. This is deemed a trivial matter, and on a certain level it is, but the emotional meaning of symbolism (including those threatened by their absence here) can also be unjustly trivialized.
It is out of respect for the religious meaning of a creche that leads many to be uncomfortable about government decisions on its placement: shouldn't this honoring of religion be considered a good thing? Or, perhaps, those who feel Christmas is a weakly religious "one size fits all" holiday do not quite understand such strongly held beliefs.
Which is sort of sad and ungenerous of them.
---
* For instance, he defends the New Testament from feminist critics, but fails to even mention various (arguably quite late) verses in Pauline epistles about how women should not speak out at church. This sort of trumps brief mentions of women among Jesus' disciples and "credits" sort listings of women by Paul, so clearly deserves better treatment.
Likewise, Dr. Witherington fails to consider one reason why certain feminists find Gnostic literature appealing is that its focus on the inner light, not the physical form per se, clearly has potential. This is so even if the Gnostics themselves didn't take it as far as it could go.
Furthermore, adding to the sadly sloppy reasoning in a book that did have some useful points to make, mention is made of women having public roles in the Gnostic community, roles that by that time (second and third century) would run against late Pauline opposition to women speaking in public! Thus underlining why the absence of a discussion of the controversial verses previously mentioned was so troubling.