14 January 2006
Those poor, persecuted Christians
The Claremont Review of Books is a publication of the Claremont Institute, and is supposed to be an answer to liberal book reviews such as the New York Review of Books and the New York Times Book Review. I subscribed to read the different viewpoint, and have not been disappointed, though I disagree with much of the material. Most galling are the fund raising appeals against gay marriage or activist judges from the Institute. THIS EDITORIAL from the current issue is typical.
I have trouble mustering outrage for the poor, persecuted Christians in the United States. They control every branch of national and local office, after all. It is astounding to me that they have the gall to attempt to dictate how other people greet them in December. Can pagans receive a happy solstice greeting at Hobby Lobby, or Jews a Happy Hanukkah at Chick-Fil-A? To think they typically accuse liberals of being overly concerned about their feelings!
The third paragraph fails utterly:
As a question of etiquette, the issue invites thought. To wish someone the joy of the holiday is not automatically to presume that he shares it. For example, it's not impolite to say "Happy St. Patrick's Day" to someone who isn't Irish. By the same token, one can wish a Frenchman "Happy Bastille Day" without being a Frenchman, or even approving of the French Revolution. The important thing is that, in saying it, you wish him well; imagining yourself in his shoes is a gracious part of such friendliness.
It is not that upset Jews or Pagans are demanding Christians cease expressing their religion, though some no doubt are and that is where the sensitivity arises, but that Christians are not receiving the greeting of their choice! Oh, the outrage!
The fifth paragraph conflates a public or government act of religion, and a private, market-based one:
This season's dustup over "Happy Holidays" is thus a mild case of a more serious disorder. The cutting edge of aggressive secularism reveals itself in efforts to banish Biblical religion altogether from public life: to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, to abrade the Ten Commandments from public buildings, to discourage schoolchildren from filling their moments of silence with a joyful noise unto the Lord. In effect, the secularists demand that the tone of public life must be made to conform to atheistic standards. Everyone must be taught to behave as "practical atheists," in John Paul II's wonderful phrase. Even believers—especially believers—must learn to speak and act, outside the sanctuary of their churches and synagogues, as though God doesn't exist. Anything else would amount to persecution of non-believers.
If Target thought handing out baby fetus Christmas ornaments would increase business, they would.
The final paragraph strikes the right note, and notes that Christians gave the holiday away all by themselves:
Finally, religion dignified civil society by making it the home of man's highest purpose, to know and worship God. Yet civil society was also the site of man's lower but urgent purpose, economic exchange and moneymaking. The two were connected, so G. K. Chesterton observed, by such merry occasions as holy days. "Rationally," he wrote, "there appears no reason why we should not sing and give each other presents in honour of anything—the birth of Michael Angelo or the opening of Euston Station. But it does not work. As a fact, men only become greedily and gloriously material about something spiritualistic." In other words, if you want to keep complaining about the commercialization of Christmas, don't turn it into a mere happy holiday.
Non-Christians did not act to subvert the holiday over the years by replacing Jesus with Santa Claus, but many Christians did. Christians who are upset about this are reaping the crop of making a public display of faith in the first place. Once the horse is out of the barn it is not very likely to graze where the farmer would want it.
I have trouble mustering outrage for the poor, persecuted Christians in the United States. They control every branch of national and local office, after all. It is astounding to me that they have the gall to attempt to dictate how other people greet them in December. Can pagans receive a happy solstice greeting at Hobby Lobby, or Jews a Happy Hanukkah at Chick-Fil-A? To think they typically accuse liberals of being overly concerned about their feelings!
The third paragraph fails utterly:
As a question of etiquette, the issue invites thought. To wish someone the joy of the holiday is not automatically to presume that he shares it. For example, it's not impolite to say "Happy St. Patrick's Day" to someone who isn't Irish. By the same token, one can wish a Frenchman "Happy Bastille Day" without being a Frenchman, or even approving of the French Revolution. The important thing is that, in saying it, you wish him well; imagining yourself in his shoes is a gracious part of such friendliness.
It is not that upset Jews or Pagans are demanding Christians cease expressing their religion, though some no doubt are and that is where the sensitivity arises, but that Christians are not receiving the greeting of their choice! Oh, the outrage!
The fifth paragraph conflates a public or government act of religion, and a private, market-based one:
This season's dustup over "Happy Holidays" is thus a mild case of a more serious disorder. The cutting edge of aggressive secularism reveals itself in efforts to banish Biblical religion altogether from public life: to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, to abrade the Ten Commandments from public buildings, to discourage schoolchildren from filling their moments of silence with a joyful noise unto the Lord. In effect, the secularists demand that the tone of public life must be made to conform to atheistic standards. Everyone must be taught to behave as "practical atheists," in John Paul II's wonderful phrase. Even believers—especially believers—must learn to speak and act, outside the sanctuary of their churches and synagogues, as though God doesn't exist. Anything else would amount to persecution of non-believers.
If Target thought handing out baby fetus Christmas ornaments would increase business, they would.
The final paragraph strikes the right note, and notes that Christians gave the holiday away all by themselves:
Finally, religion dignified civil society by making it the home of man's highest purpose, to know and worship God. Yet civil society was also the site of man's lower but urgent purpose, economic exchange and moneymaking. The two were connected, so G. K. Chesterton observed, by such merry occasions as holy days. "Rationally," he wrote, "there appears no reason why we should not sing and give each other presents in honour of anything—the birth of Michael Angelo or the opening of Euston Station. But it does not work. As a fact, men only become greedily and gloriously material about something spiritualistic." In other words, if you want to keep complaining about the commercialization of Christmas, don't turn it into a mere happy holiday.
Non-Christians did not act to subvert the holiday over the years by replacing Jesus with Santa Claus, but many Christians did. Christians who are upset about this are reaping the crop of making a public display of faith in the first place. Once the horse is out of the barn it is not very likely to graze where the farmer would want it.
