For the past several years, I've heard of this strange, mythological tale of a "War on Christmas." At first, it was unfathomable to me, and conjured images of reindeer defending the North Pole with automatic rifles. This was much more interesting than what it turned out to be. In a nutshell, it's a bunch of conservatives fearing that changing cultural demographics are infringing on their rights to participate in the only religion in the world that actually exists: Christianity.
Unbeknownst to these quaint folk, there is a diabolical Kwanzaa celebration happening next door
I might not be a particularly informed person to speak about this matter. In my house, Christmas is not a particularly religious event. We don't attend church or belong to any kind of organized religion, which means two things; one, we're going to hell, and two, we sit awkwardly at baptisms and communions and mumble when we're asked to recite things.
I might not be able to relate to the War on Christmas, and the thousands of innocent Christians that have lost their lives during combat and been buried in Starbucks holiday coffee cups. I'd actually prefer to live in a coffee cup because it sounds cozy and quiet and I wouldn't be troubled by ridiculous bullsh*t.
But I live in the United States, where I feel it's important to have discussions so ignorance isn't validated and celebrated instead of being elected president. I do not believe there is a War on Christmas, and anyone who attests that there is lives in a close-minded bubble that is so fragile it could be popped by Tommy's sword in a Rugrats Hanukkah special.
I imagine that this is what the enemy base camp look like.
But self-indulgent memes aside, let's take a look at the validity of some actual arguments. According to Fox News, the ACLU has filed numerous lawsuits to suppress public observances of Christmas. They cite horrifying instances of suppression in which an elementary school is allowed to sing "Hanukkah Dance," and yet an innocent child is not allowed to pass out greeting cards with pictures of Jesus on them.
Christmas morning, circa 2056
Now, I can understand where some of these families may be coming from - at least emotionally. In their eyes, they see this exchange of Jesus as spreading holiday joy according to their personal conception of what joy and prosperity means. Yet there's a stark difference between a symbol of festivity and a symbol of worship. It's very easy to generalize and say, "Because these are symbols of religious expression, they should all be taken into equal account, and to do otherwise would be offensive."
Well, that's where you're wrong - because a song about dancing on Hanukkah is very, very different than passing out a picture of Jesus Christ.
It's very easy to hear these words and jump to thoughts of oppression. Yet I consider it very naive to pass out a symbol of worship and expect the receiver to have no qualms about what you're doing. There are songs that our culture associates with the holidays, like Frosty The Snowman or Jingle Bells, and even songs that are very specific to a certain religion such as Dreidel, Dreidel. Yet these songs are not clearly about worshiping a religious deity, but rather focused on the merriment of the holiday season.
You might not like it, but it's important to realize that religion has started more wars than anything else in history - period. You don't have the authority to hand a picture of Jesus to somebody and expect your offering to be immediately construed with peace and love.
Jesus, like any other religious deity, is a personal depiction of worship that should not be forced onto other people, especially as a positive symbol. Nobody has the right to make their own religion stand for somebody else's values. Of course, there might not be malicious intent or desire to convert the receiver in question, but that's just the thing - it boils down to ignorance. If you hand your personal symbol of worship to somebody and feel entitled to a positive response, you are placing your own religion over their personal beliefs.
Another fact of the matter: I feel much of the original intent of Christmas has been lost. Now, don't get me wrong, there are millions upon millions of people around the world who still celebrate the religious aspect of Christmas. It would be offensive and patronizing to dismiss such a wide faction of people. Yet celebrators of Christmas now include atheists, as well as genuinely non-religious people who only want to spend time with their families. Christmas has become so commercialized, with the Macy's holiday displays and the hot toy items and the gadget sales online, that it's hard for a "war on Christmas" to not be inherently subjective.
If a holiday has become so widespread and so uniquely different to so many families, then what is a "war on Christmas" really tackling? Is it specifically attacking the religious aspect of the holidays? Is it attacking the celebration in general, regardless of any association with Jesus Christ?
It becomes hard an argument to have credibility when Christmas itself is now such a malleable thing. Of course, this leads to another possible argument; the insistence that the "war on Christmas" is a result of changing demographics and immigration threatening cultural traditions. Well, if you live in such a fragile bubble that you feel threatened by your neighbors lighting a menorah next door, maybe you should spend a little less time complaining about Starbucks coffee cups and a little more time digging your head out of the gutter.
I wasn't sure how to close this article, because both possibilities seemed to instigate controversy - Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas? I don't want to start a third-world war, so I'm going to drink some eggnog and contemplate my place in the universe.
Good night.
