Merry Christmas, Michael Newdow
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Culture — Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Let me start this off right: I don’t believe in Christmas. At least, not Christmas as it is generally understood by the Catholics/Evangelicals in America today. Now, my family always celebrated Christmas as a nice holiday with Red and Green and family time; but specifically, I don’t believe that Christmas is the actual birth day of Christ, nor that the observation of the birthday of Christ on any day is either commanded by the Bible or a good idea, theologically speaking. I don’t really want to get into the theological reasons for why that is, and please don’t threadjack by arguing the point. If you really want, email me privately and I’ll try to respond.
With that in mind, let me explain to you why (a) The ACLU and Michael Newdow are dead wrong and (b) I hope they just keep right on doing what they’re doing.
More below the fold:
UPDATE [12-07-05 01:32:00 EST by Leon H]: In case you are wondering, yes, I do think that this is a bit silly.
I can well remember the first time this conflict presented itself in my household as a small child. In my kindergarten class (at a public school, the horror!) my teacher put up a “Christmas calendar” that had all the days for the month of December (you may have a similar one in your house). Every day that went by, you flipped up a little window for that day, and some Chistmas/nativity scene would be behind the window. I was fascinated by this particular calendar, even though I didn’t really understand it. On the last day of school before the Christmas break, my teacher gathered us all around the little calendar, and flipped up all the windows between that day and Christmas all at once. I can remember that the scene behind the window for Christmas day had a star – and the teacher explained that the star was to signify the birth of Jesus. I can remember asking my teacher (can you imagine?) what the birth of Jesus had to do with Christmas, and she explained to me that Christmas was Jesus’ birthday.
Well, I went right home, eager to share the new thing I had learned at school that day with my parents. “Did you know that Christmas is Jesus’s birthday?” I asked my mom.
“No, it’s not.”
“Yes, it is, the teacher said it was.”
”Now, Leon, I want you to listen to this. You should always listen to your teachers at school. But if your teacher tells you something, and we tell you something different, who do you think you should believe?”
I can tell you that this was pretty much the end of the discussion. School was the place where you went to learn how to read, multiplication, etc, and home was the place where you learned the substantive values that defined you as a person. Which brings up the first point that I have to make about Michael Newdow. If your connection with your daughter is so weak that it is even possible that a public school could successfully displace the values you hold dear, then you are an absolute failure as a parent.
As a larger point, the entire hullabaloo being expressed by some on both sides of the political spectrum about various things that go on at school is symptomatic of a larger problem that exists in society: we have largely abdicated our responsibility as parents to be the primary importer of values to our children. Now, I can understand the anger and frustration of parents who are facing the problem of schools exposing their children to sexually explicit material at increasingly young ages, because frankly, a parent of a six-year-old hasn’t had a fair shot to make their own explanation and implant their own values on that topic yet. But in most cases, I have a hard time mustering indignation at what this particular school district or that one is teaching to children – school is school, and if parents are doing their jobs, it will frankly be impossible for the schools to displace the values our children should be learning at home.
Also, I can remember the first time my religious beliefs made me “different” at school. One of the things I was involved in during Junior High was the school choir. And, every year we would inevitably have a Christmas concert, which would generally involve (shocking, I know) songs about the birth of Christ. Quite apart from that, my religious beliefs don’t mesh with religious singing that isn’t a capella. Therefore, whenever the Christmas program rolled around, there would automatically be songs I couldn’t sing with the group.
So you know what I did? I called up the ACLU and sued the school and got the Christmas program stopped, because otherwise the blow to my dignity might have killed me.
Not really. Actually, I didn’t sing. When it was time to sing a song that I found objectionable, I would step off the back of the stage, the people to either side of me would close the hole, and when the song was done, I would jump back up on. Somehow, I managed to find a way to survive sans lawsuit. Now obviously, some people noticed my absence during these songs (most noticeably, the other folks in choir with me). Naturally, they asked questions. Some were snarky, but most were respectfully curious. It gave me an opportunity to explain certain aspects of my faith. I can’t say that I made any converts, but I can say that at the very least some doors were opened.
Now let me tell you about another guy I knew. I don’t know how things were in your high school, but in central Oklahoma, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) is a very big deal in most high schools, as it was in mine. During the time I was in high school, the FCA had a marketing plan that involved putting posters for their events on every third locker or so. Now, another thing I’m not so big on is ecumenicalism, so whenever I got one of these flyers pasted on my locker, I just ripped the thing off and threw it in the bottom of my locker with the rest of the garbage that resided there.
This other guy I knew, however, who went to high school down the road, was Jewish. The thing about Jews is, they aren’t Christians. So, eventually, someone put a flyer on his locker advertising a meeting for people who (gasp!) believed in Christ. So, instead of crumpling up his flyer and thinking, “Gee, I sure do feel sorry for all those people who have been deluded into following that false prophet,” he decided that his dignity – nay, his very humanity was being challenged, and that if he did not challenge this anti-Semitic affrontery to his religion, he would be betraying his faith. Accordingly, he called the local chapter of the ACLU and sued the school, seeking an injunction against the very existence of the FCA.
No, seriously, he really did.
Now, I can tell you with certainty that this particular individual got no politely curious inquiries about why people of his faith did not accept Jesus as the Christ. What he did get was about 300 flyers affixed to his locker alone. And about an equal number affixed to his car. And a bunch of other unpleasant things placed through various means on and inside of his car. As an end result, he transferred to a different school halfway through his senior year.
In conclusion, here are some important lessons I have learned from these life experiences, that might be helpful to Mr. Newdow and his friends at the ACLU, and which I therefore hope they will ignore.
First of all, only a borderline clinically neurotic person would be legitimately offended by someone saying “Merry Christmas” to them. Take it from a person who doesn’t share the common understanding of Christmas – life goes on, really it does. And further, I appreciate the sentiment that “Merry Christmas” conveys, with or without the religious connotations, and I’m usually uplifted that someone took a second out of their busy day to try and brighten mine with a “Merry Christmas” and a smile. Accordingly, I often say “Merry Christmas” to others. Michael Newdow should try this sometime, and perhaps he wouldn’t perpetually look like someone cancelled his M*A*S*H reruns. And as for his argument that the phrase “In God We Trust” on his money makes him a second class citizen – that’s crossing over the borderline from neurotic into idiotic, and no two ways about it.
Second, people generally respect others who are different. However, they really detest someone who is determined to shove that difference down their throats, to the point that you are required not only to accept their difference, but to relinquish a critical portion of your own identity out of “respect” for that difference. What they really hate most of all is someone who runs to court to enjoin the government to force them to do so. I sincerely hope that Newdow and the ACLU never ever catch on to the real life existence of this phenomenon, commonly known as “backlash” by everyone who lives in the real world.
Third, we all need to take a long, hard look at the depth of conviction we have, and the diligence with which we are passing those convictions along to our children. One of the inevitable realities of majority viewpoints is that someone is always going to be in the minority. We live in a great country, where the right to express a minority viewpoint is protected. I’m free to not participate in a Christmas program if I don’t want to. The guy I knew in High School was free to not attend an FCA event. Both of us were free to attempt to proselytize others to our viewpoint. So long as those rights are protected, there is no legitimate reason to try to assume the position the majority enjoys (by virtue of being the majority) through judicial fiat. In the first place, it’s pointless, and in the second place, it will only serve to alienate virtually everyone from your position. Get a grip, stand by the strength of your conviction and live your life in dignity and strength, and people will naturally be drawn to ask you about the reason behind your conviction, and how it is that you can live such a happy and fulfilled life. If your goal is real-life change, rather than despotic control, this is the only avenue to achieve that end. I know from personal experience.
I’m thankful for a lot of things this time of year. I enjoy the cold weather, the cheerful lights strung along the streetlamps, the end of the school semester, and time with family. I’m thankful for the way people are in general nicer and more thoughtful of one another. And I’m also thankful for the fact that these common-sense lessons are ones that people like Michael Newdow and the ACLU will never, ever learn. And with each new ridiculous and limp-wristed lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of someone claiming oppression on the basis of some innocuous and harmless tradition, the people who value those traditions (that’s the vast majority of this country) will ask themselves, “What kind of political party would shelter those rubes, anyway?” And thus we will take another step toward the destruction of my own personal Carthage.
So, Merry Christmas, Michael Newdow.
And on a more serious note, Merry Christmas to you all.
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | Narnia Hate Watch — Comments (120) »
Merry Christmas, Michael Newdow 25 Comments (0 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It's not the great majority who claim to be some sort of Christian-oriented belief who are under siege.
It's just those who let those beliefs impact their daily life, and wish to have the right to express those views in public.
I admit it bothers me, when it is used out of an attempt to be politically correct, or when store employees are told it is the only "approved" greeting. That is neurotic. But if somebody says "Happy Holidays" to me, I can't say I am ready to run off to the nearest newspaper or lawyer.
The Christmas cards don't bother me either. Shoot we got one last year, and my daughter was thrilled-I don't think I even noticed it said Happy Holidays on it, and she sure enough didn't care.
in a gift, right? Same thing with those that are attacking Christmas. The Christmas issue hasn't been a big deal to me, it is the thought and intention behind the attack on Christmas that I feel is the issue that needs to be addressed. In this case I think they have bitten off more than they can chew, at the wrong time, and that their efforts will be counterproductive.
...I say "Merry Christmas" by default and "Happy Holidays" in situations where I'm likely to encounter significant numbers of non-Christians. I also really don't care if somebody uses either; as long as people are being nice, the terms aren't an issue for me.
Being raised Muslim, I didn't even celebrate Christmas in even the secular form. I went to a private school that wasn't parochial but still, being in a small Southern city, was composed of many religious people. I remember my first serious religious discussion actually occured in the first grade, while a fellow kid and I were picking cloverleaves during recess! (I'm not sure how we got on the topic of Jesus, but as it turned out, she believed he was the son of God and I thought he was a pretty cool prophet. Things went from there).
Sure, sometimes I felt different. I wished I could celebrate Christmas, but really, it was because I wanted to get presents. (I could have celebrated Eid and gotten presents then, but the precondition was that I would have to spend all Eid in the mosque, and no present was worth that). Sure, my marching band said the Lord's Prayer before every performance, but it was made clear that anyone could step away and no one would think less of them (some people did, and it was no big deal). I stayed, and learned the Lord's Prayer to boot, because I decided that we were all praying to the same God anyway. The only time I ever stayed silent on a prayer or a song was when it spoke of Jesus, and usually I'd just stay quiet on those particular lines.
I knew a substantial number of Bengali Muslim kids where I grew up, and many today derisively speak of the South as a racist, fundamentalist area where they felt outcast and different. Of course, most of them are whiny brats and were taught that stuff from their parents. We lived in a heavily white, heavily Christian area. Of course we were different. But never once was I made to feel different. Never once did I get into a discussion of religious and cultural differences that was anything but respectful - and those discussions started between kids in the first grade, and with small town people with not a lot of diversity experiences in their lives.
My parents taught me to be proud of who I am and not let others define me. Maybe that's the difference.
As an agnostic, I do not celebrate the birth of Christ, nor the Christmas (or holiday) season. I do, however defend the rights of the majority in the United States. This time of year is the most sacred and celebrated for most citizens. Demonizing the celebration by banning religious scenes or striking the word "Christmas" from the words "Christmas Tree" is not the way to deal with a minority complaint. I support the majority's right to place Christmas symbols in public places because it is the majority of the citizens that celebrate this holiday season. As the minority of religious people, I don't take offense and we should not be the ones dictating what is right and wrong through the court system.
Mr Newdow and the ACLU should try to get terminated any union contracts involving federal employees that recognize Christmas as a special day. In fact, they should not recognize Sundays as special either, nor some other holidays, e.g. Thanksgiving. For example, if a union contract involving federal employees mandates that double-time should be paid on Christmas Day or on Sundays, we need to get that contract scrapped. By hiring employees at that union, isn't the government breaking "the wall"?
The Dems can wink at eash other while Newdow goes after the pledge and such, but I'd like to see their discomfort if he were to broaden his attack to hit their constituents directly.
If more people had this attitude towards life in general, we would all be better off.
Being in the Jewish minority I am saddened that some Jews want to run to lawyers over this issue. Leon is correct that the parents have a lock control over the values of their children if they want to have it. And I have unwashed my son's brain on many occasions when he came home from school with a nutty socialist idea.
I have great respect for Christian songs/hymns, and enjoy them, and even sing them myself. I don't hold that singing the lyrics of a song necessarily connotes a violation of one's religious beliefs, and I don't worry that G-d will hold it against me later either. (The Battle Hymn of the Republic is a particularly good song for all Americans.)
I get annoyed by Christians who make personal attempts at "saving my sole" because I consider such things to be rude when they know I don't intend any such thing. ( I guess the first attempt isn't rude, just like a sexual harrassment is not a violation until the person is told to knock it off.) But nativity scenes in the town square are fine, the Christmas holiday season is nice time of year and the good vibs are for us all. Merry Christmas/Happy Hannukah. (Ramadan is over -- hope yours was acceptable to you.)
I support Mr. Newdow in his battle against "under God" in the pledge and his battle against "in God we trust". These items were brought about by congress in defiance of the first amendment. However, anyone saying merry christmas or happy holidays (lumping together Christmas and New Years day) doesen't bother me in the least. As an atheist I have no problem with anyone pushing their point of view from a street corner or a bumper sticker or their own front yard or their own website, etc. But the first amendment states that CONGRESS will not do so in the name of all citizens. There is a BIG difference between the free expression in the first case and congress dictating an expression in the second. We must uphold the separation of church and state or this nation is in trouble.
Sam Sharp
There is a BIG difference between the free expression in the first case and congress dictating an expression in the second.
This would catch the current slate of Justices off guard, given seventy years' worth of rulings directly on this point.
We must uphold the separation of church and state or this nation is in trouble.
We survived without it for the better part of two centuries.
First a Merry Christmas to you and yours. It may not mean exactly the same to the two of us, but it means much to me to offer it to you.
Second, thanks for this eloquent little piece. I found this paragraph
Second, people generally respect others who are different. However, they really detest someone who is determined to shove that difference down their throats, to the point that you are required not only to accept their difference, but to relinquish a critical portion of your own identity out of "respect" for that difference. What they really hate most of all is someone who runs to court to enjoin the government to force them to do so.
especially interesting since it encompasses much of what I have felt most of my life. My Dad always emphasised to me that in America the majority rules with respect for the rights of the minority; that it was sometimes hard work to avoid a tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately, the Newdows and the ACLUs of the world are working for the tyranny of the minority.
....If your connection with your daughter is so weak that it is even possible that a public school could successfully displace the values you hold dear, then you are an absolute failure as a parent....
I absolutely agree, and would like to reserve this quote for any future whining and gnashing of teeth about those big bad public schools destroying the values of our nation.
Whether it be sex-ed, gays, Christmas, etc, if people did their job as parents, they wouldn't have to worry about their children's values.
I am perplexed by this idea that the government is somehow banned from acknowledging God by the first amendment. The first amendment states no such thing.
The amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
If we look at history and what the founding fathers were attempting to break away from in England, we can easily see the intent of this amendment. The British government has ESTABLISHED the Church of England as the official church. The founding fathers realized that this was a bad idea to have the government running a church. This amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion. It does not prevent the government from acknowledging religion. Phrases like 'In God We Trust' and 'One Nation Under God' are acknowledgements. This could actually have come from several religions. Both Christians and Jews refer to the Creator as God. So exactly which religion is being established here?
Which religion does placing the Ten Commandments in a courthouse establish? Both Christians and Jews believe the Ten Commandments were given by God. However, the Christian is not under the law, but under grace. (See the book of Romans) So maybe the Ten Commandments are more about the Jewish faith, or maybe not. I would have no problem with a courthouse or other government building displaying portions of the Quaran as an acknowledgement of the Muslim faith. As long as the Government does not tell me that I am not free to practice my faith, and as long as the government does not tell you that you are free to not practice a faith, then there is no Establishment of Religion. Only Acknowledgement.
The constitution also does not say that you have a right to not be offended. Creating a right that no one may offend you is contrary to freedom.
A great quote from the movie: The American President sums it up:
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
So, you are free to say that you do not believe the government should endorse or acknowledge any religion. And if you feel strongly about it, you should contact your legislators and compel them to act. At the same time, I feel it is appropriate, and I contact my legislators and compel them to continue this practice. This is what our country is about, and how things should be done.
Going to the courts subverts the process and in the end makes us less free. The courts have decided that if something is offensive to you, then we're not allowed to say or do it. This is placing the freedoms we enjoy at risk.
I couldn't agree more with Leon's post regarding parents who litigate rather than train their children. However, I couldn't help but respond to Sunshine's post regarding what is taught regarding sex-ed, homosexuality, (I would add multi-culturalism, globalism, earth worship) etc. in our public schools. I agree with the thought that this wouldn't matter if parents were not abdicating their primary resposibility; however, should we let the substantial population of children living in broken homes or who have worthless parents be indoctrinated by the ideology of secular humanism? Shouldn't we protest the teaching of anything other than basic educational subjects (math, english, reading, etc). I admit that subjects like science, civics, or history could easily be hijacked, yet are proper subjects for education. However, explicit endorsement of any narrow view point or subjects that have little to do with educational topics should be off limits in public education.
I was around 12 or 13 years old before I realized that Christmas wasn't a foreign word for kid's day. We had a Mother's day and Father's day and I always thought that Christmas meant kid's day. And I still do.
are on the hit list too, just not as a matter of religion. Just ask a certain one of our esteemed Supreme Court justices....
Not only that, but I'm never one to turn down an excuse to have a good time! I'll be having a Merry Christmas when wished, even if the day has no religious significance to me. Same goes for Yuletide or Saturnalia or whatever you got.
For me, "Happy Holidays" means exactly that! :-)
Didn't read your diary btw. Didn't have too.
They are DEAD WRONG in attacking Christmas because:
They are ruining it for the kids that are growing up today. Is there a position more important than that?
That's literally the first time anyone's every flat out told me that he didn't read what he was responding to. I mean, usually, it's pretty apparent, but I guess I appreciate the honesty. If you had, in fact, bothered to read what I wrote - even the part above the fold, you would have noticed:
(a) The ACLU and Michael Newdow are dead wrong
and
Second, people generally respect others who are different. However, they really detest someone who is determined to shove that difference down their throats, to the point that you are required not only to accept their difference, but to relinquish a critical portion of your own identity out of "respect" for that difference.
and
One of the inevitable realities of majority viewpoints is that someone is always going to be in the minority. We live in a great country, where the right to express a minority viewpoint is protected. I'm free to not participate in a Christmas program if I don't want to. The guy I knew in High School was free to not attend an FCA event. Both of us were free to attempt to proselytize others to our viewpoint. So long as those rights are protected, there is no legitimate reason to try to assume the position the majority enjoys (by virtue of being the majority) through judicial fiat.
I feel the same way anytime those awful holywood types portray the tooth fairy as a rouse on tv or in the movies.
I think what drives the passions around the "de-Christianization" of Christmas is the notion of entitlement at the heart of most of those who protest against the religious symbols and public recognition of Christmas.
Somehow our proud legacy of religious freedom and our continuing concern about civil rights and liberties have become all messed up. Now the "test" for many people (especially, but by no means solely, on the left) is whether anyone, anywhere, for any reason finds a Christian symbol offensive. Since this is an impossible test to pass (There will always be a crank around somewhere) we are guaranteed a steady stream of nuisance lawsuit opportunities. We have allowed "what os acceptable" to be defined by the lowest common denominator of griping.
I think this happened when the Supreme Court allowed its scope to increase so as to cover cultural currents. When the Court became a cultural arbiter rather than a strict interpreter of law, then all it takes is one malcontent to cause trouble.
Whenever I seek to untangle a messy contemporary issue of this sort, I ask myself "What would the Founders have thought?" Forget everything else. Forget politics. Forget the Court. Just ask that question. Would they have shrunk back in horror because a town or a state recognized a religious holiday? Or because "In God We Trust" is on the currency?
To think they would have requires either stunning, willful ignorance or a really bad reading of history.
and valid. However it doesn't trump mine! I think the secret to fighting a lot of this nonsense is not with logic or legal fights, but emotions and finance.
Getting a whole lot of women (correctly) thinking that their kids and grandkids are getting shafted and fighting the powers that be with their pocketbooks (and maybe even their votes!) will solve this perhaps quicker than anything else.
"First of all, only a borderline clinically neurotic person would be legitimately offended by someone saying "Merry Christmas" to them."
I would argue the same applies to those who go apoplectic over having someone nicely say Happy Holidays as well (because that 80% minority of Christians is under attack). Thanks for the point about the Bush cards offending people being absurd. It's just a bloody Christmas card for crying out loud. And in general I prefer your approach in dealing with things as to not participating and generally on the odiousness of Newdow's tilting at windmills. You had me saying good diary up to the Carthage comment, but alas, as you and I have already discussed, I prefer to protect the right to make purple dye and thus you and I go our separate ways.
Anyway, enjoyed the read, and happy holidays :) to you (good luck on your finals by the way, I have my law school ones hitting next week too).