Anti-Christmas Talking Points

Someone's circulating anti-Christmas talking points.

I came across them first in researching yesterday's Putting the [Blank] Back In [Blank]mas, when I found Neal Conan, host of NPR's Talk of the Nation, saying:

Anybody who studied the history of our country knows that the ancestors of the modern-day Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and others outlawed the celebration of Christmas even when legal mobs sometimes broke in and destroyed Christmas decorations. In many states, it wasn't until the mid-19th century that Christmas celebrations were accepted. The one thing these people seem to have in common with their predecessors is a desire to impose their opinions and practices about Christmas on everyone else.'

Then today, Adam Cohen editorializes in the NYTimes:

Throughout the 1800's, many religious leaders were still trying to hold the line. As late as 1855, New York newspapers reported that Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist churches were closed on Dec. 25 because "they do not accept the day as a Holy One."

Hmmm. Did you have any idea that the the goings-on of Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists in the mid-1800s was such common knowledge? Who's issuing the talking points? Somebody, that's for sure.

Their talking points miss a point: At no time did the church not praise God for the miracle of Christ incarnate. The cathedrals of Europe are full of beautiful stained glass portrayals of the baby Jesus. Some denominations may have had problems with the nature of how we mark this most amazing of all miracles -- God in skin -- but none would have their believers completely ignore it as Conan and Cohen would.

Conan and Cohen believe, or want us to believe, that efforts to get the word Christmas back into Christmas are anti-Christian. Cohen makes the point that historically, the church has been uncomfortable with the commercialization of Christmas, so it seems hypocritical to talk of boycotting stars that instruct their employees not to say "Merry Christmas."

Not being church-goers, they miss the point. Putting the Christ back into Christmas is a personal message, a message from our pastors, priests and reverends to us, not the stores. They're telling us to not lose sight of the fact that amist all the glitter and gold cards, we are celebrating the birth of the Savior. It's a struggle, and it bears frequent repeating.

Cohen's argument boils down to two points:

This year's Christmas "defenders" are not just tolerating commercialization - they're insisting on it. They are also rewriting Christmas history on another key point: non-Christians' objection to having the holiday forced on them.

The "Merry Christmas" movement is not one of mandatory commercialization; rather, it is the effort of a segment of the population not to have its beliefs and holy days dismissed as irrelevant or even somehow wrong. Aggressive secularists have been doing just that, and we're fighting back using their tactics -- going to court and not going to stores. How can they object?

Neither are we forcing a holiday on anyone. Mr. Cohen can say "Happy Hanukah" to me all day long and I won't feel he's forcing Judaism on me. He's just wishing me well within his cultural context (I'm assuming here that Adam Cohen is Jewish). I like the sentiment of Asalaam Alaikum, too (although I do wish they'd agree on a spelling!), and think it's fine when an Arab friend wishes it to me. I don't feel like he's forcing his religion on me.

And besides, if they were, I'm not accepting. No biggie.

I do feel that Cohen, in particular, is forcing his religion on me by seeking to deprive me of mine. And I'm tired of feeling that way, so I appreciate it when a clerk says "Merry Christmas." And this year, I'm simply going to do more shopping where I'm appreciated.

Shalom, Asalaam Alaikum and Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good afternoon.