Well, my point is is that things change. The argument that something should be kept because it is tradition is silly. I was also pointing out that the various practices and trappings of our society come from many sources. We don't "properly" credit most of these. Why should Christmas be any different? Some people have trouble accepting that the world isn't static. That's why we grow old and grouchy. This doesn't mean that you can't still have Christmas. But this also doesn't mean that the next generations will have quite the same traditions. Or that holidays will have quite the same meaning. But that doesn't make them any less valid. This change os not an attack on Christianity or whatever the dominant religion, culture, etc. is. Unfortunately, many people are afraid of this change and feel that it is an attack, when it's merely the dynamic nature of people.
Christmas is not "gift giving, trees, mistletoe, etc". Watch the Charlie Brown Christmas special Tuesday at 7 on KRTK. I think a more accurate statement would be that Christmas would not be celebrated on Dec. 25th if it weren't for Yule/Saturnalia and winter solstice. Otherwise Christmas would probably be celebrated on a different date. More info here.
Some people like change. They like diversity. They like to stay updated and with the latest technology and social advancements. Some people like a comfort zone. They like to fill their needs and stay there. They find stability and comfort in a historically established system. Because of these dramatically different views, people's opinions will clash. The traditionalists will snub the modernists, and vice versa. It's the way of things.
Since I was referring to the traditions surrounding the celebration of Christmas, I don't see how bringing up "It's not about materialism, it's about the spirit!" is relevent at all. I was also specifically trying to show I wasn't speaking of the Christian aspects of the celebration, but the TRADITIONS. I agree that it would be likely that a holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus would appear on a different date. But, again, as far as the traditions associated with the current Christmas, it would not be the same holiday.
Why does the no exit strategy president hate Christmas? 'Holiday' Cards Ring Hollow for Some on Bushes' List By Alan Cooperman Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, December 7, 2005; A01 What's missing from the White House Christmas card? Christmas. This month, as in every December since he took office, President Bush sent out cards with a generic end-of-the-year message, wishing 1.4 million of his close friends and supporters a happy "holiday season." Many people are thrilled to get a White House Christmas card, no matter what the greeting inside. But some conservative Christians are reacting as if Bush stuck coal in their stockings. "This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. Bush "claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn't act like one," said Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com. "I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it." Religious conservatives are miffed because they have been pressuring stores to advertise Christmas sales rather than "holiday specials" and urging schools to let students out for Christmas vacation rather than for "winter break." They celebrated when House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) insisted that the sparkling spectacle on the Capitol lawn should be called the Capitol Christmas Tree, not a holiday spruce. Then along comes a generic season's greeting from the White House, paid for by the Republican National Committee. The cover art is also secular, if not humanist: It shows the presidential pets -- two dogs and a cat -- frolicking on a snowy White House lawn. "Certainly President and Mrs. Bush, because of their faith, celebrate Christmas," said Susan Whitson, Laura Bush's press secretary. "Their cards in recent years have included best wishes for a holiday season, rather than Christmas wishes, because they are sent to people of all faiths." That is the same rationale offered by major retailers for generic holiday catalogues, and it is accepted by groups such as the National Council of Churches. "I think it's more important to put Christ back into our war planning than into our Christmas cards," said the council's general secretary, the Rev. Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman. But the White House's explanation does not satisfy the groups -- which have grown in number in recent years -- that believe there is, in the words of the Heritage Foundation, a "war on Christmas" involving an "ever-stronger push toward a neutered 'holiday' season so that non-Christians won't be even the slightest bit offended." One of the generals on the pro-Christmas side is Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. "Sometimes it's hard to tell whether this is sinister -- it's the purging of Christ from Christmas -- or whether it's just political correctness run amok," he said. "I think in the case of the White House, it's just political correctness." Wildmon does not give retailers the same benefit of the doubt. This year, he has called for a consumer boycott of Target stores because the chain issued a holiday advertising circular that did not mention Christmas. Last year, he aimed a similar boycott at Macy's Inc., which averted a repeat this December by proclaiming "Merry Christmas" in its advertising and in-store displays. "It bothers me that the White House card leaves off any reference to Jesus, while we've got Ramadan celebrations in the White House," Wildmon said. "What's going on there?" At the Catholic League, Donohue had just announced a boycott of the Lands' End catalogue when he received his White House holiday card. True, he said, the Bushes included a verse from Psalm 28, but Psalms are in the Old Testament and do not mention Jesus' birth. "They'd better address this, because they're no better than the retailers who have lost the will to say 'Merry Christmas,' " he said. Donohue said that Wal-Mart, facing a threatened boycott, added a Christmas page to its Web site and fired a customer relations employee who wrote a letter linking Christmas to "Siberian shamanism." He was not mollified by a letter from Lands' End saying it "adopted the 'holiday' terminology as a way to comply with one of the basic freedoms granted to all Americans: freedom of religion." "Ninety-six percent of Americans celebrate Christmas," Donohue said. "Spare me the diversity lecture." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601900_pf.html
The Australian guy is totally right. Christmas is a Christian celebration, if people of other faiths dont want to celebrate it....fine...no one is forcing them to, just ignore the month of the year that stores try to sell more merchandise and Christians celebrate Christ's birth. We dont b**** about other faiths celebrating their holidays, why pick on ours?
I don't know how the hell they come up with that number. I would bet my life that Christians don't compromise 96% of the country. This whole thing lead by Donohue is so asanine. How can people really devote so much time and energy into pressuring Wal-Mart to call it a Christmas sale? Wasn't Jesus more about helping the needy than having a sale named after a holiday in his honor? I think this is less about religious freedom than it his having a feeling of superiority by having dominant religious and economic forces endorse your religion. I mean, honestly, what other reason than ego could there be for insisting that those 2 weeks off be called "Christmas break" or that it be a "Christmas tree" in the Capitol? Honestly, I can't believe there are organizations devoted to fighting this battle...
I don't know how he got that number either but he didn't say Christians, he said Americans. I suspect many non-Christians "celebrate" Christmas with respect to decorating and gift-giving.
I think the reaction is not so much because it's important to call the holiday correctly. There is a perception amongst Christians that naming the holiday traditionally Christmas is due to a celabration of the birth of Christ. By changing the name some Christians are reacting because their perception is that the reason is to take the traditional Christian focus away. So there is a preception of antagonism against the Christian tradition. I would compare it to someone trying to change Martin Luther King day to Ethnic Holiday. Or someone trying to change the Fourth of July to Fireworks Day. There is meaning in why the name of the holidays are what they are. For some Christians the tie in to the birth of Christ is very important. As has been stated (I think) Christians don't need a holiday to celebrate Christ. It is the tradition and meaning behind the day that causes some to want the name to remain. IMHO
But the problem is what is the "Christian focus" they're losing? Wal-Mart having a holiday sale doesn't prevent people from celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. I've never missed Christmas eve service with my parents because someone wished us a "Happy Holiday" in their letter and we decided not to go because the season wasn't about Jesus. When you say "Christian focus," I think that Donohue et. al see that as outward societal displays of one religion. They feel in a position of power when it's their religion's holiday that is endorsed in store sales, government greeting cards, town hall nativity scenes, and Christmas vacations. It seems to me that it's more about making themselves feel right and reminding others that they're religion is true. I understand when you refer to it as "antagonism against the Christian tradition," but I don't see how that tradition is defensible in the first place. We are a pluralistic society, we believe in secular government, I think it's more about hanging on to power than anything. Of course, all ethics, politics, and nearly every human action boils down to power. So, whatever...
I don't think it should be a Christian's 'cause' if Wal Mart or anyone else wants to change anything. I am just trying to explain that in the mind of some Christians I believe they sincerely feel wronged that any movement is taking place that changes what is perceived to be a religious holiday. Some people view 4th of July as a patriotic holiday, others have lost any significance to this nation's founding. It is just the annual 4th of July sale on BBQ pits. Religious people can be extra sensitive to these issues if they are strong in tradition. Please don't be upset by this. They find tradition strongly mixed in their faith. America was not always a strongly pluralistic society at all. That is a recent change that some do not realize or welcome as much as others. Also the definition of secular government has changed in time. Today most view that to mean a government that is void of all religion. There was a day that a secular government simply meant not controlled by organized religion. The religious were welcomed into the 'secular' government and even believed that those best qualified to serve in government held religious faith. That was long ago.
I understand and agree with your point that you're making. However, what I'm trying to do is go one step further and understand why they feel that tradition is tied to elements which don't directly effect the way they celebrate that holiday. If Christmas is really about Christians celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, then why would they care if it's called Winter Vacation or Christmas vacation? When you say "traditions" I don't understand how these are deeply tied to the holiday itself. Most of these "traditions" are superfluous external endorsements of the holiday rather than the holiday itself, and are thus more about displaying that holiday than the actual holiday itself. I think once you begin to understand the conflict from that perspective, it starts to make the conflict make more sense and makes compromise on the issue much easier.
i understand everything you're saying. what i'm saying is to step in the shoes of those on the other side of the argument. always a healthy exercise. are they wrong for feeling the way they feel? maybe. i tend to agree...the superflous stuff isn't what i'm real concerned with. i think Christians spend way too much time worrying about Ten Commandments monuments at courthouses....to the point of idolatry, really. but there are events and traditions people associate with their personal faith. and for whatever reason, there are a group of people who feel like those things are being trampled on. i think you just have to give it some time.
I agree. I'm not faulting people for feeling the way they do. I'm just trying to provide an explanation for why they feel that way. Understanding and identifying the reasons people hold certain opinions and take certain actions is the best way to understand and resolve conflicts.
