0
   

Is there room for Christmas anymore?:

 
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 05:16 pm
Foxfyre, a very good book on the history of modern Christmas (c.1600-2000) is: The Battle for Christmas by Stephen Nissenbaum 1996, Vintage Books.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 05:20 pm
Yes, I have the book in my library Acquiunk. It is a good one,
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 07:15 pm
Re: Is there room for Christmas anymore?:
Quote:
Earlier this year, the Woodland, Illinois, school district moved to prohibit bus drivers from playing Christmas carols on the radio. In Denver, officials were poised to remove the "Merry Christmas" sign from the city's holiday display. In both cases, citizens protested until officials changed their minds. By contrast, in Maplewood, New Jersey, school officials are sticking by their decisions to ban any religious-themed carols--even instrumental versions--from holiday concerts. And at Freedom Elementary School in southern Florida, the holiday pageant has been replaced altogether with a patriotism-themed program. ("There are a lot of rules and regulations out there," the school principal told the local press. "You're trying to be respectful of everyone.") And forget nativity scenes: Even Christmas trees are a no-no in an increasing number of schools.

How sad. In an effort to acknowledge everyone's beliefs, we're creating a climate in which people are too paranoid to allow the expression of anyone's beliefs. Clearly this shouldn't be the case. The courts have already established that the way to handle the issue of religious expression isn't to banish Christmas trees from the public square but to ensure equal access for anyone who might be interested in displaying a menorah or the seven symbols of Kwanzaa [..]

Basically, everyone needs to unclench and have a cup of frigging eggnog.

I totally agree, without hesitation.

I thought multiculturalism - remember the "salad bowl" that was to replace the "melting pot"? - was to have been about making the country a pluralistic space for everyone to express his own belief, culture and identity in. No more forced integration into all the same homogenous, "American" mold! We have African-Americans, Arab-Americans, Jewish and Hindu Americans, and they all should have the right to experience and express their own identity freely without being denied the American identity. Right?

So how did that adorable liberal concept of tolerance in plurality get turned into a tight-arsed clampdown on difference - a sanitisation of difference - in the hope that if we force everything back down to the lowest common denominator, noone will feel offended? Hello? Isn't telling people that their identity, their culture, is fine as long as kept in the privacy of their home offensive too? (See the point about gays below as well).

It is surely ironic that it has to be, apparently, the religious right now that has to make the point the multiculturalists of yore set out to achieve. Freedom for expression of identity. Freedom to celebrate each one's own, and all together everyone's beliefs and traditions. Why in heaven's name (sorry) not?

To just put another unexpected comparison out there: one thing I never understood about the conservative case against gays - you know, against being openly gay in the army, against gays marrying - is this concept that someone else openly acting on and celebrating his own lifestyle, is somehow an infringement of yours. If they get to have a marriage celebration as well, then ours is damaged or worth less!

What illiberal a repressed state of mind is this? Why would this be so? And why would a shopwindow with Xmas decorations lessen the value of your own Hindu holiday? Why would the city wishing its citizens a merry Christmas necessarily mean a humiliation of any other religion's holiday? And even if you do think it is, wouldnt the obvious answer be to ask the shop or city to also devote their space or wishes to a Jewish or Muslim holiday when it comes around, rather than try to clamp down on any and all public appearances of religious celebration?

I totally agree with Fox on this one ( Shocked ). The choir she mentions, where they sang both Christian and Jewish songs, and everyone was happy. Why not? Why be tight-arsed about it? Why would anyone need to be offended by getting to sing the other religion's songs - if his/her own get their turn, as well? Isn't that - American?

The answer to religious discrimination is to allow everyone the free opportunity to celebrate all religions - not to roll back religion out of the public sphere altogether. Let a thousand flowers bloom, is what I say.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 07:50 pm
Perhaps today's Americans should take a cue from those Balkan peoples, with their supposed "ancient ethnic hatreds".

On the faultlines of cultures and religions, but far away from the respective centres of religious dogma, the peasants of the Rhodopes, according to some, found their own ways to be together, and yet themselves. I dug this bit back up from my thesis (page 51 of 246 ;-)) - will improvise a translation to English of this paragraph or two:

Quote:

According to the ethnological study in Relations of Compatibility and Incompatibility.., however, the conclusion about the ethnical component of Bulgarian village mentality should be a wholly different one. There was and is, the thesis is here, a 'system of coexistence' between christians and muslims in the Bulgarian village, in which both parties respect the difference of the other and expresses that in traditional conventions of exchange and tribute. The ethnologists have recorded these conventions exhaustively. The groups share the village in which they live in patterns of day-to-day life passed on from generation to generation, and in the confidence that both parties will rebuff any infringement of these relations.

This system of coexistence rests on several pillars. The exchange of gifts at religious feasts, mutual visits at marriage and birth and the presence at funerals (and participation therein according to each others traditions) make the religious difference a familiar one. In this mutual involvement, the boundary between the groups is made unproblematic and yet cultivated. In the northern Rhodopes, for example, the muslims take it upon themselves to serve the guests at christian marriages and the christians do the same at islamic marriages. Sometimes, too, the boundary is stretched a little for the benefit of pleasant relations - drinking is done together (alcoholism is a problem among muslims too), and so is eating. Moreover one participates in each other's feasts - one third of the muslims in Bulgaria celebrates Christmas. As one muslim from Konoush, who on the eve of Christmas was readying himself to slaughter the pig of the priest, summarized it: "We are going to become Christians for 40 days now. We eat pork and drink wine. After that we'll be Muslims again". And finally, religion itself is a bridge, because an underlying 'spiritual map', dating from pagan times, is also shared. The faithful of both confessions share the same superstitions and believe in the same healing powers and sanctity of the same places - and thus, Bulgarian muslims stay overnight in the Saint Nicholas Church, and christians visit the Demir Baba Teke.

0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 07:59 pm
Oh, please bring that Christmas bit/post over to my "cultural treat" thread, nimh.

We're sharing Advent and Christmas traditions, and that would be a beautiful example of sharing.
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 10:38 pm
My dear Swampgas, the in-your-face sanctimony (calculated to foment conflict) is NOT likely something that Jesus would endorse.

Gospel accounts relate how Jesus had to deal with smug Pharisees, and how Jesus gave us parables about Samaritans as well as Prodigals (parables from which SOME people seem unable to derive any edification)... but He never exploited religious conflict for entertainment value... as YOU do, again and again and again.

Do you never tire of stirring up trouble?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Dec, 2004 03:37 am
Quote:
Christmas cancelled due to lack of interest
By Sophie Goodchild, Home Affairs Correspondent
19 December 2004


It will be a bleak midwinter for Manchester churches, according to the first major study of seasonal congregations. The capital of the north will have Britain's emptiest pews on Christmas Day.

The city comes at the bottom of a league table of Yuletide attendance, with barely 2 per cent of the population in church on Christmas Eve and the following morning. In contrast, towns such as Guildford in Surrey can expect a flood of "Christmas tourists" - a breed of worshipper who expects what the authors call a "high-class version of the pantomime".

Dr David Voas, a specialist in religious change at Manchester University, said the Christmas worshippers are "confident enough to go into their parish church although they are not seen the rest of the year". The Government-funded research, published today, is based on Church of England statistics and reveals a marked North-South divide. Christmas congregations in Durham, Sheffield, Liverpool and Birmingham are not significantly bigger than normal. This contrasts with southern towns and rural areas where attendances can treble. The most godly place is Hereford, where more than 10 per cent of the population will be at an Anglican church this Christmas.
Source
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Dec, 2004 06:25 am
Well...I guess some people could consider this less than totally charitable, but I say...

...f**k the Christians.

And I love Christmas.

The food is terrific...presents seem to make lots of people happy...the economy gets a boost.

What is not to love.

But f**k the Christians.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Dec, 2004 07:30 am
Dear Friends

This year has been real good for the Farmers. Little Jimmy has got let out on work release and only had, since, one little run-in with the law, so, after we got im out on bail, hesgonna l be spending Christmas at home. Actually hell be spending the next 6 months at home cuz that little leg thing sure makes a racket ifn he tries to sneak outside the trailer.
Maude has been doin fine, her counsellor said that she was almost all drug free and we wont have to woory bout her attackin the dog with scissors anymore.
My old plymouth finally rotted through so I went out and got a new car, a 1986 ford truck. The bed needs to have a piece a plywood ifn I wantta carry anything big or heavy but Im gonna get around to puttin on a new bed this spring when I get a job.
My workeman comp claim worked out real well so were gonna have a nice turkey Helper dinner for christmas and ifn the money holes out Ill get evrybody a lottery ticket .

The cat had another batch a kittens, boy she has more kids than MAude. Good thing the dogs not particular about food.
We built a sunporch addition on the back a the trailer. Its really neat on hot summer days ta sit out there an have some beers and some doobies. Sometimes the Good Lord provides. That new development sure was handy for all the wood and sheetrock. I got it all painted up and covered before the cops came over to "investigate" all the missin stuff they had reportted at the development. Assholes shouldnt leave **** layin aroun if they dont want it missin. Hell they got more in surance than they need.
Well, tthats tthe news from the Farmer clan, we are all in perty good helth and we hope the similar is what you are found in.

Merry Christmas
and God Bless george Bush an Jeff Gordon

PS-turns out that Mary Lou Anne wasnt pregnant at all, she just got some kinda votarian cesst. We all hopin that goes away natural cause she got a good job at the roadhouse, an we can sure use the money.

Well again I find me in alright stattus and hope you are similar likewise
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Dec, 2004 09:38 am
nimh wrote:
As one muslim from Konoush, who on the eve of Christmas was readying himself to slaughter the pig of the priest, summarized it:

This bit always had me in stitches, somehow ... it's so burlesquely surreal! Razz

And at this bit I always kind of marvelled .. such an unusual, but elegant solution ...:

nimh wrote:
In the northern Rhodopes, for example, the muslims take it upon themselves to serve the guests at christian marriages and the christians do the same at islamic marriages.

Also, something as simple as the presence at each other's ceremonies "and participation therein according to each others traditions", is such a simple thing to do, but could, I think, solve so much, here in my country too ... and it certainly would apply to the topic at hand in this thread ... isn't it a much more sympathetic community approach than forcing everyone to withdraw their celebrations to the private sphere?

Mind you, there are less rosy accounts of Bulgarian village life as well ...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Dec, 2004 06:58 pm
Thank you all....okay thanks to most of you...for your insights here. Nimh and Walter, the two Europeans, seem to best catch on to the point of this and of course some others of you have too. I doubt the Europeans are having the same degree of issues of separation of church and state that we are having here. The United States may be much more churched than Europe is these days, but I'm going to bet we also have a higher number of politically active and activist athiests who really do want to eradicate all evidence of religion from the public scene everywhere.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 03:56 pm
On a lighter note though, I know of exactly the right destination for your Christmas holiday outing this year ...

Time to pack your bags!

Razz
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 04:02 pm
As someone who's old enough to remember squirming through mandatory carol singing in grade school*, I'm glad that this is no longer going on.

Why isn't it sufficient to have the church, home and the streets for caroling? Why this insistence on religion in public school?



* I wasn't then and am not now Christian.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 04:09 pm
nimh, Satans Kingdom is in Neepaug State Forest on The Farmington River in New Hartford Connecticut. Its name derives from the extremely contorted landscape of the vicinity and a spectacular (for Connecticut) gorge through which the Farmington River flows Geologically it is an interesting landscape. Historically it is know as the location of an 18th century settlement of Tunxis Indians.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 05:08 pm
It's still funny Acquiunk. But I prefer. . .

http://ffmedia.ign.com/filmforce/image/heavensgate-cover.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 05:13 pm
D writes
Quote:
As someone who's old enough to remember squirming through mandatory carol singing in grade school*, I'm glad that this is no longer going on.

Why isn't it sufficient to have the church, home and the streets for caroling? Why this insistence on religion in public school?


It isn't insistance on religion in public schools D, it's insistance that exposure to things religious hurt nobody, especially Christmas carols. To strip the schools of all the more beautiful symoblism of the season and deny the children to be able to sing the great historical compositions, some that have been sung for centuries, smacks of the hardest heart comparable to that of the Grinch himself.

http://www.everwonder.com/david/thegrinch/10.jpg
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 05:41 pm
Spoken like someone who knows what's best for everyone, Foxfyre. I tried to explain why those who don't belong to the majority religion feel uncomfortable when they have to sing those songs.

But I suppose one must bend to the majority view these days. They're beautiful songs, so all children must sing them. Is that the appropriate response?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 05:48 pm
Did you read the thread at all D? Did you read Nimh's wonderful short essay on the subject? Did you see that the children are not uncomfortable singing these songs? If people don't want to do it, they won't. But if they want to, who are you to say they shouldn't?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 05:49 pm
Oh Foxfire is very much into this "it doesn't hurt anyone" mode these days.

"In God we trust" doesn't hurt anyone.

"One nation under God" doesn't hurt anyone.

The Inquisition doesn't hurt anyon....oops...well, maybe the Inquisition did hurt a few people.

But we don't have an Inquisition here.


Or at least...not yet.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 05:49 pm
But I told you I was uncomfortable, Foxfyre. And I wasn't weird and unique.

Should I doubt my own experience because of what you or Nimh want to believe is true?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 10:57:40