I mean, 'tis the weekend before Christmas.
And what, to my surprise, should appear in both papers (local and big city)? Why, mention of Christmas! On the front pages, no less.
Yikes. And we just heard from some guy who was all upset because he spotted a Nativity scene at a small suburban city hall. This traumatized him to the point of having to complain officially. And to write to our big city paper. He loudly expressed the wish that religious people (Christians, in this case) keep our views private. Fittingly, he used a public forum to convey this. I guess some views are more sacred than others.
Hugh Briss, president of our local Americans Riled by Sacred Expressions (ARSE) chapter and author of Shutting People Up in the Name of Free Speech, recently wrote a friendly essay to"religious morons everywhere" in which he pointed out, "It's about not promoting religion. Once you start allowing Christmas scenes on statehouse lawns and such, people start celebrating Christmas. Before you know it, they start singing carols. And I don't like carols. Therefore, you people should either stop singing them OR sing the damn things where I can't hear them. Got it?" Asked if he plans to take the holiday off, he replied, "Of course. Are you nuts?"
Hugh's authority? The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states, "Let it be established that Nativity scenes, in particular, piss us off."
In another local piece, a person objecting to some other Nativity display asked that he remain anonymous, lest religious fanatics come after him. Good point--the pages of recent history are littered with terrifying tales of Nativity scene gripers who disappeared or were found floating in a lake someplace. Thus, it takes a heck of a lot of courage to speak out in this fashion. In the Hall of Heroes, a special wing has been dedicated to the take-down-the-creche cause and its manly members.
Being a Christian, I am, of course, too dumb to understand evolution, the need for stem cell research, or why HBO shows are--as a rule--vital and indispensable, but even I can grasp that the Establishment Clause is mainly about not creating a state church. Which is why we don't have one.
Now, creches are familiar symbols of our culture's biggest (by far) annual holiday. They go up for the season; they come down when it's over. In any way, shape, or form, does the displaying of these symbols contribute toward making Christianity the state religion?
I'm glad there are people loony enough to think so, but we need not bend to their perceptions, any more than you or I need to take down our back porch light because the guy down the street thinks it's a beacon for space monsters.
As for Christianity becoming the official religion, good galloping luck. There are only five million different versions thereof. I'm amazed by those who think Christianity exists in a single, simple, totally-agreed-upon version--no, scared by them. People capable of stereotyping that broadly are people who need help.
Anyway, try sometime to get ten humans to agree on what to bring to the next potluck. Multiply those odds by a million, and you have some idea how likely we are to wake up anytime to church rule, no matter how many creche scenes we establish annually.
4 comments:
I've heard quite a bit of outcry over the radio program "Freethought Radio" being broadcast nationally, as though one atheistic radio program out of thousands is a harbinger of the end times. And what about the hysteria surrounding the film "The Golden Compass"? The ARSEs (Americans Riled by Secular Expressions) seem to be out in force, too, this Festivus season. Thanks to the ARSEs intolerance, I have yet to see one reference to Festivus in my local paper, nor a single Festivus pole in the city square. Unless you count the flag pole as a Festivus pole, which seems like a stretch. How long, I wonder, before the ARSEs demand that even our flag poles be taken down?
Never heard of "Freethought Radio." But a few comments. 1) Freethought (as an adjective) isn't the same as non-religious. 2) The Golden Compass is anti-religious in the extreme, meaning--at the very least--that the makers were not only expecting but counting on such a reaction. Besides, people have the right to boycott whatever product they choose, unless you'd prefer we live in a society which doesn't allow same (do you?), and 3) secular isn't the same as atheist, at least as far as it's popularly defined. To wit, "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head" is a secular tune, but it's not exactly atheist. I'm a bit weary of atheists trying to claim so much territory as their own. You're the freethinkers, the secularists, and apparently you control permission to protest. Sounds rather hubristic to me.
Yes, I'm sure there's been a big, big push to get Festivus poles put up. The suppression of this movement is downright Nazi-like in its tone and vigor.
I've never encountered people so eager to gain victim status. Somehow, though, I strongly suspect that real persecution is not that much fun or glamorous. Of course, what your side really wants is the noteriety with none of the scars or setbacks that go with truly sacrificing for a cause.
Wow, I merely pointed out that people on all sides like to grouse, and from this you divine that I want to shut down protest and embrace victimhood. A surprising charge from one who was so traumatized by some nut's Letter to the Editor that he had to rush to the computer and blog about it! Are you this letter writer's victim? Do you want to shut down his rights? I don't think so. Yet you imagine that you are at war with this guy, and with me, judging from your odd remark about my "side." What side am I on? The side that points out that everybody likes to complain? The side that makes ridiculous jokes about Festivus poles?
And I wasn't confusing "secular" with "atheist," I just thought ARSE sounded better than ARAE.
Far out. Well, part of the problem is that I didn't know what Festivus referred to--a Seinfeld joke, I discovered via Google. I don't watch much Seinfeld. Also, I wasn't exactly sure what your ARSEs-on-both-sides point had to do with what I wrote. Of course there are fanatics on both sides. More of them, in fact, seem to hang out on my (the religious) side.
Your Nativity scene/Golden Compass parallel doesn't work for me, as it's a matter of secularists calling for the removal of something vs. (presumably) Christians protesting a movie's content. People have a right to protest movie content, especially when we're talking about a film that deliberately maligns a certain demographic. Otherwise, we're affording freedom of speech to moviemakers and not to the public. You don't want that, I'm sure.
No one, on the other hand, has a right to call for the taking down of holiday symbols at city halls, at least based on the Establishment Clause, which clearly was written to forbid the establishment of a state church. If we're going to ban creches based on the E. Clause, then we need to explain how an annual city-hall creche display introduces us to the danger of a state church, or else we need to drop the silliness.
The Golden Compass is anti-religious in the extreme, whereas Christmas symbols are not anti-secularist per se. I'm questioning the right of secularists to suppress free speech, not their right to protest whatever they choose to protest. You'll notice that two completely unrelated rationales are traded and tossed around to support creche suppression (I just made that term up)--1) That such displays work toward establishing the Church of the Manger Scene, or 2) That such displays are only fair if every other possible holiday display goes up with them. The second argument, which I find very specious, doesn't derive from the Establishment Clause in any way. If anything, if we're against establishing a state church, we'd want as few sacred displays as possible, not the maximum.
When people debate, they tend to take sides. I thought you were debating--hence I referred to your side. Why not regard it as shorthand for position?
The letter writer complained about the Nativity scene in the hopes of having it removed. That takes us into free speech territory. By making fun of his letter, I wasn't questioning his right to hold his views or to express them--I was trying to point out the irony of someone using a public forum to suggest that others be given less of a voice in public.
I guess I'm trying to break down a rather complex issue into little parts that get to the essence of the issue. It's the stuff of analyzing. There's a very serious issue underlying the creche wars--it's more than people griping back and forth. In pointing that out, I risk being labeled a fool or a fanatic, but I've been called worse.
Post a Comment