Tag: war on Christmas

Posted on

“war” on Christmas?

Every year at this time, we seem to hear the recharged vernacular about the existence of a “war on Christmas.”  Funny.  I mean, as a nation, I don’t think we’re all that fond of war, but yet we seem to find the term rhetorically pleasing when it best suits our passion… a war on Christmas, war on teachers… war on drugs, poverty, marriage, you-name-it.  As a nation not so fond of war, we sure speak of it frequently.

 

The Intramuralist cannot say with certainty if any “war” exists — and as I learned well from my respected friends in the military — I’m not comfortable with such casual use of the word, “war.”  War is an armed conflict between different nations or groups.  Last I heard, we were still called a united state of America.

 

The controversy, no less, refers to the acknowledgement of Christmas in government, media, and advertising.  Christmas, as evidenced in its name, is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, the long awaited day that the Messiah was embodied in human form.  That’s the meaning of Christmas.  I say that not with any disrespect to the person who does not believe in him.  I say that not with any disrespect to the person who — consistent with many religions, including Islam and Judaism — believes Jesus was a real person who walked this planet but was not the son of God.  I say that not with any disrespect.  I am simply identifying the basis for the holiday.

 

The controversy also is not as simple as some suggest, reducing it to the preference of articulating either “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays” or something jolly old else.  A person could say “Season’s Greetings” and still acknowledge God.  Hence, the question is whether or not there is an intentional attempt to omit God during the season.

 

So… asking the better question… I won’t ask whether or not there is any existence of war; but is there an intent to omit any acknowledgement of Jesus in the holiday that originated because of him?  I ask because of what we have again recently witnessed…

 

  • Although changing their mind after a significant nationwide outrage, ESPN rejected a commercial set to run during a college basketball game from Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center.  The executive director of the foundation said the ad was rejected because ESPN found the words “Jesus” and “God” to be “problematic.”

 

  • A nativity scene was removed from Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina.  The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which works to eradicate any reference to religion and especially Christianity, pursued the removal, calling it illegal because it was not erected near a chapel.

 

  • Or in College Park, Georgia — similar to multiple places across the country — where elementary school children were to perform their annual Christmas musical program, prior to which the parents each received a letter saying, “Religious songs will not be included.”

 

Not be included.  Intentional omission.  No acknowledgement.

 

I understand that in order to be completely politically correct, we often have to “water things down.”  The inherent challenge, though, is when we water things down so much that we eventually remove the reason for the season.  Make no mistake about it; Christmas is about Christ.  Each of us can choose if and how to celebrate it.  What’s challenging is when we choose how someone else can or cannot celebrate.

 

Interestingly, there actually is a new holiday this time of year.  Perhaps you’ve heard of it:  “HumanLight.”  It was invented by secular humanists 12 years ago, celebrated annually on December 23rd.  It is not a direct attempt to secularize an existing holiday, but it is an intentional attempt to omit any acknowledgement of God.

 

I wonder if HumanLight has any songs… wonder, too, if they can actually be sung…

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

diminishing Christmas?

As the shopping days dwindle and the ole’ familiar carols continue to play, I’m struck by a continuous topic in some circles this time of year:  is there a war on Christmas?

 

As posted previously amidst these pages, the Intramuralist isn’t into identifying something as war that actually is not.  In the past year we’ve seen the rhetorical rants regarding wars on women, teachers, unions, and coal, for example.  Truthfully, friends, the war terminology seems most employed when the goal is to drum up passion for like perspective.  War is war, and in my semi-humble opinion, it should never be treated as something it is not.

 

There do exist movements, no less, in which people work to diminish impact and influence.  Again, these cannot logically be equated with combat.  Therefore, the question this season is not whether there exists military combat on Christmas; the question is whether there exists an intentional movement to diminish the impact and influence of the Christian holiday.

 

We’ve discussed, past, eye-opening examples…

 

… such as in 2002, when New York City schools banned nativity scenes from their December decor but allowed for Hanukkah menorahs and Muslim stars and crescents…

 

… or how each year retailers, such as Sears, Target, Walmart, Best Buy, or The Gap have either avoided or been accused of avoiding the use of the word “Christmas,” opting instead for “holiday” and/or the watered-down “winter.”

 

The examples continue this current season…

 

… in Newhall, California, where residents of a senior apartment complex were originally told by building staff that they had to take down their Christmas tree because of the presence of Christ’s name in the phrase, “Christmas tree”…

 

… in Santa Monica, where a large-scale nativity scene has been publicly erected for the last 60 years, but atheists have long worked to halt any public, religious sentiment.  After a year long battle via courts and complaints, the Santa Monica City Council finally voted to prevent any and all religious displays on public property.  (Notice the diminished impact.)

 

… or even overseas… where in Brussels, Belgium, they omitted their popular city Christmas tree exhibit this year.  Why?  There were concerns that the local Muslim population would find it “offensive.”

 

Yes, in this sensitive, seemingly uncanny age of correctness, many institutions still choose to address the Christmas controversy (not combat) by paying equal attention to other seasonal holidays.  Typically, this means ample consideration of Hanukkah for those who are Jewish and Kwanzaa for those who are African-American.  What I find unique about these celebrations is the comparison of the holidays…

 

Factually speaking, Hanukkah refers to 165 B.C. when Jewish rituals — which had been previously outlawed — where reinstated as the Jewish people managed to drive the Syrian army out of Jerusalem and reclaim their temple.  Hanukkah is the celebration of this victory; previous to the late 1800’s, Hanukkah was considered a minor holiday.

 

Kwanzaa, on the other hand, is factually more of an ethnic as opposed to religious holiday.  It was developed by Dr. Maulana Karenga in 1966 as a way to celebrate and promote the African-American culture.

 

Christmas, no less, is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, in whom hundreds of prophecies were consequently fulfilled.

 

In other words, in this uncanny age of correctness — with of course all due respect — when we attempt to pay equal attention to all holidays, we are comparing reclaiming a temple with honor for an ethnic heritage with the birth of the savior of the world.

 

As said at the onset of this post, I don’t believe there is any so-called ongoing war.  I don’t.  But it certainly does seem that the excluding of acknowledgement and the equating of holidays is an attempt to diminish the impact that if true, the savior of the world would undoubtedly hold.

 

Respectfully,

AR