Happy Holichrismahanukwanzaadan?

[esskreemr]

OK, I'll start the annual ball rolling.

[Amadeus]

Christmas.

i'm all for equal rights in religion and all that, but i think that alot of people are just taking it too far. Christmas has become almost a bad word in advertising and schools. i think there comes a certain point where the minorities in this country will have to realize that the majority sometimes acts differently than they do, and that this is ok.

[QueenofSwords]

Hanukkah. I'm so happy that people have finally got into the act in my town! Now they are creating Hanukkah lights, way more Hanukkah decorations, even PetsMart is selling Hanukkah toys for dogs and cats!

[JackOfHearts]

Not everyone celebrates christmas, hanukah, or whatever. But everone loves presents. Happy fickin holidays!

[jeff]

This poll is flawed, because it doesn't include "Merry Christmas" ("Ho ho ho!" optional, no batteries included) I say either "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" - I think it is at the very least simple politeness to not assume that people have a particular religion and greet them with a religious expression they may not share, which can be irritating and excluding.

If you want some entertainment, though, see http://members.cox.net/transam57/lights.wmv

[Gav]

It's Happy Christmas. The only people who care are the hand ringers. We live in Christian countries - even though Christmas is not striclty an authentic christian tradition - it is celebrated as such. The only people who care are hand wringers and [occasionally] zealots. Frankly, as an atheist, I call it Christmass: it doesn't offend me, other people are religious and I respect that. Other creeds respect our traditions, we theirs so what's the problem?

So call it Christmas and don't be stupid.

[jeff]

We don't have a monarch who is head of the State Church here in the US (somebody will perhaps contradict me!)

[Epee_Pox]

I'm not a believer in any religion, and strongly feel that the state should not impose any particular religion on the populace, but at the same time strongly feel that the state should not stop people from practicing their beliefs (the bit most of the hand-wringers over here keep conveniently forgetting when they bring up the 1st amendment).

That said, I say "Merry Christmas" if I'm fairly certain the person I'm speaking to celebrates Christmas. "Happy Holidays" to everyone else. (Except one particularly hand-wringing friend, for whom I go out of my way to wish a not unpleasant winter solstice.)

[gojujay]

I'm Christian though I've found that I drift toward the Deist or Panentheist belief mode. I say Merry Christmas unless I know that the individual to whom I am speaking is a different religion. Then I say Happy whatever their religion celebrates. Even though their all really just celebrations of the Winter Solstice.

[Gav]

We don't have a monarch who is head of the State Church here in the US (somebody will perhaps contradict me!)

What's that got to do with anything?

[Gav]

You might find this article interesting:

Wal-Mart employee fired for Christmas email

And the follow up letters are also interersting.

[jeff]

What's that got to do with anything?

That's a reply to your "We live in Christian countries". Those in the UK do live in a Christian country - by law, tradition and population majority. In the US we have the tradition and population, but not the legal status of being a "Christian country". France would be the same, by law a non-religious country.

That said, it's a touchy subject. Members of minority religions (and atheists) often get fed up with being bombarded with what they consider religious propaganda for several months on end, with religious symbols for one religion in every place in public life, frequently paid for with their tax dollars. Members of the majority faith sometimes have difficulty understanding that this can be offensive (and I suggest could exercise more effort in being in the other guys position) yet react noisily when somebody changes wording to make it more inclusive, with the result you point out at Wal-Mart where some guy lost his job. There are boycotts organized by some pastors to not shop at any store with "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".

"Happy Holidays" fits Christians, Jew, Muslims, anybody else with a winter festival, and anybody who thinks a free day off from school or work is a holiday.

If anybody were to complain about cheapening a period of religious expression, I personally think it should be along the idea that Christmas has been converted into Winter Spending Season...

edit: blech, it's snowing now. I hate shoveling the driveway. I'll get my Winter Spending Season tree next weekend instead of today.

[jeff]

Just got this note in my in-box. How timely:

Subject: For IP: "Commercialize Christmas, or Else"


December 4, 2005
Editorial Observer
This Season's War Cry: Commercialize Christmas, or Else
By ADAM COHEN

Religious conservatives have a cause this holiday season: the
commercialization of Christmas. They're for it.

The American Family Association is leading a boycott of Target for
not using the words "Merry Christmas" in its advertising. (Target
denies it has an anti-Merry-Christmas policy.) The Catholic League
boycotted Wal-Mart in part over the way its Web site treated searches
for "Christmas." Bill O'Reilly, the Fox anchor who last year started
a "Christmas Under Siege" campaign, has a chart on his Web site of
stores that use the phrase "Happy Holidays," along with a poll that
asks, "Will you shop at stores that do not say 'Merry Christmas'?"

This campaign - which is being hyped on Fox and conservative talk
radio - is an odd one. Christmas remains ubiquitous, and with its
celebrators in control of the White House, Congress, the Supreme
Court and every state supreme court and legislature, it hardly lacks
for powerful supporters. There is also something perverse, when
Christians are being jailed for discussing the Bible in Saudi Arabia
and slaughtered in Sudan, about spending so much energy on stores
that sell "holiday trees."

What is less obvious, though, is that Christmas's self-proclaimed
defenders are rewriting the holiday's history. They claim that the
"traditional" American Christmas is under attack by what John Gibson,
another Fox anchor, calls "professional atheists" and "Christian
haters." But America has a complicated history with Christmas, going
back to the Puritans, who despised it. What the boycotters are doing
is not defending America's Christmas traditions, but creating a new
version of the holiday that fits a political agenda.

The Puritans considered Christmas un-Christian, and hoped to keep it
out of America. They could not find Dec. 25 in the Bible, their sole
source of religious guidance, and insisted that the date derived from
Saturnalia, the Roman heathens' wintertime celebration. On their
first Dec. 25 in the New World, in 1620, the Puritans worked on
building projects and ostentatiously ignored the holiday. From 1659
to 1681 Massachusetts went further, making celebrating Christmas "by
forbearing of labor, feasting or in any other way" a crime.

The concern that Christmas distracted from religious piety continued
even after Puritanism waned. In 1827, an Episcopal bishop lamented
that the Devil had stolen Christmas "and converted it into a day of
worldly festivity, shooting and swearing." 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." On the eve of the Civil War, Christmas was
recognized in just 18 states.

Christmas gained popularity when it was transformed into a domestic
celebration, after the publication of Clement Clarke Moore's "Visit
from St. Nicholas" and Thomas Nast's Harper's Weekly drawings, which
created the image of a white-bearded Santa who gave gifts to
children. The new emphasis lessened religious leaders' worries that
the holiday would be given over to drinking and swearing, but it
introduced another concern: commercialism. By the 1920's, the retail
industry had adopted Christmas as its own, sponsoring annual
ceremonies to kick off the "Christmas shopping season."

Religious leaders objected strongly. The Christmas that emerged had
an inherent tension: merchants tried to make it about buying, while
clergymen tried to keep commerce out. A 1931 Times roundup of
Christmas sermons reported a common theme: "the suggestion that
Christmas could not survive if Christ were thrust into the background
by materialism." A 1953 Methodist sermon broadcast on NBC - typical
of countless such sermons - lamented that Christmas had become a
"profit-seeking period." This ethic found popular expression in "A
Charlie Brown Christmas." In the 1965 TV special, Charlie Brown
ignores Lucy's advice to "get the biggest aluminum tree you can find"
and her assertion that Christmas is "a big commercial racket," and
finds a more spiritual way to observe the day.

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 campaign's leaders insist this is a new phenomenon - a "liberal
plot," in Mr. Gibson's words. But as early as 1906, the Committee on
Elementary Schools in New York City urged that Christmas hymns be
banned from the classroom, after a boycott by more than 20,000 Jewish
students. In 1946, the Rabbinical Assembly of America declared that
calling on Jewish children to sing Christmas carols was "an
infringement on their rights as Americans."

Other non-Christians have long expressed similar concerns. For
decades, companies have replaced "Christmas parties" with "holiday
parties," schools have adopted "winter breaks" instead of "Christmas
breaks," and TV stations and stores have used phrases like "Happy
Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" out of respect for the nation's
religious diversity.

The Christmas that Mr. O'Reilly and his allies are promoting - one
closely aligned with retailers, with a smack-down attitude toward
nonobservers - fits with their campaign to make America more like a
theocracy, with Christian displays on public property and Christian
prayer in public schools.

It does not, however, appear to be catching on with the public. That
may be because most Americans do not recognize this commercialized,
mean-spirited Christmas as their own. Of course, it's not even clear
the campaign's leaders really believe in it. Just a few days ago, Fox
News's online store was promoting its "Holiday Collection" for
shoppers. Among the items offered to put under a "holiday tree" was
"The O'Reilly Factor Holiday Ornament." After bloggers pointed this
out, Fox changed the "holidays" to "Christmases."

[Go? Fencing?]

I'm Christian though I've found that I drift toward the Deist or Panentheist belief mode. I say Merry Christmas unless I know that the individual to whom I am speaking is a different religion. Then I say Happy whatever their religion celebrates. Even though their all really just celebrations of the Winter Solstice.

Even though Hanukkah occurs around the same time as the other winter holidays, it is in no way a celebration of the Solstice. It's a celebration of a historical event where a small, poorly-armed group of Jews defeated a huge, well-armed army. They fought to defend their right to their faith. Then they went back to fix up the Temple, which their enemies had ruined, and went to relight the Eternal Light (which all temples have, and churches have them too, although they're usually candles in churches), but discovered that they only had enough oil to light the lamp for one day. They lit it, and miraculously, the oil lasted for eight days, long enough for them to get more oil. They declared a celebration of the event to take place every year, and named it Hanukkah, which means Rededication, because of the rededication of the Temple.

However, the true miracle of Hanukkah was that the small group of farmers defeated a great army, with God's help. Anyone who tells you that the miracle was about the oil doesn't know the story well enough.

[QueenofSwords]

nice job.

[Epee_Pox]

However, the true miracle of Hanukkah was that the small group of farmers defeated a great army, with God's help. Anyone who tells you that the miracle was about the oil doesn't know the story well enough.

Huh. You learn something new every day. I only ever heard the oil story myself, and thought that's why it lasts so long and is called a festival of light. Which makes sense to have around the shortest day of the year, when everyone else is having celebrations rooted in an ancient hope that the sun will come back. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear that it actually was originally a solstice celebration (many of which would last a week or more), and that the older celebration was co-opted by the festival of lights. Wouldn't be the first religion to do something like that.

[Gav]

That's a reply to your "We live in Christian countries". Those in the UK do live in a Christian country - by law, tradition and population majority. In the US we have the tradition and population, but not the legal status of being a "Christian country". France would be the same, by law a non-religious country.

That's just nitpicking and general pedantry. Any country which has the motto "in god we trust" printed on its currency is a 'christian' country in all but name.

That said, it's a touchy subject. etc etc etc

They don't get fed up here ... It's only the idiots, the people who worry (aka the hand wringers), and religious zealots who get bothered ,In my experience, in the UK, people from other faiths just get on with the day to day (and make a load of cash by working when the 'christians' are busying celebrating). It's also my experience that when their holy days come round we get curious and interested in it. And we don't ask that they refer to their holy days as holidays ...

In short it's only a problem when it's made a problem. Everyone should learn to relax a little.

I find it ironic that a country, as supposedly 'religious' as ours, turns out such a large number of tolerant people - in general - who really think that the idea that a holiday might offend people is ridiculous. Incidentally, in every company I have worked in Muslim, Hindu and other holidays were respected. If the followers of other faiths wanted those days off then they got them off, if they preferred to work Christmas they got to work Christmas. It's really not a big deal.
Whereas, such a non-religious country as the US, gets all tied up about something as innocuous. People have to lighten up a little.

[jeff]

That's just nitpicking and general pedantry. Any country which has the motto "in god we trust" printed on its currency is a 'christian' country in all but name.

Oh, really? Are you saying that the God in "in God We Trust" is a Christian god and everyone else should just get over it? That sounds like the Falwell/Robertson stance, which I'm sure you don't subscribe to.

They don't get fed up here ... It's only the idiots, (snip)

I would suggest that the difference is the sometimes aggressive proselytization, even with tax dollars, that has occurred in the US, which sensitize minorities in an unpleasant way. It's not such a big deal to use language that is polite and inclusive of all, instead of "Happy <my holiday, not yours>" is it? It's not a bad thing to shun the religious zealots who want to boycott merchants who don't put the zealot's religion in their signage.

We agree that the religious zealots are idiots. Perhaps ours are more aggressive. I don't know about Scotland, but the falling attendance in traditional C of E churches indicates that religious zealotry is a waning element in Britain. I consider that by and large a good thing. Lucky you.

We do multiculturalism pretty well here, too (which is what I'm after). One year a few of us went to the cubicle of one of my employees who was about to go on holiday break and wish her "Merry Christmas" (which is what we said), and I said "A Christian, a Jew, and Hindu all wishing a Buddhist 'Merry Christmas'' - isn't that cool". And we all thought it was.

[Gav]

So are you suggesting that markers of <insert faith based holiday here> (or even non-faith although I'm finding it hard to find the equivalent Athiest-day)> should say "Happy Holiday" instead of "Happy <insert faith based holiday here>"? If not; why not? That is the logical conclusion of your inclusive language point. I find the idea that a person can't open their mouth without checking that you have'nt upset someone not only daft but oddly disturbing.

Don't forget that I am not religious in the slightest so I am not even arguing from a religous perspective.

When conducting a straw poll amongst friends religous in some non christian way, including muslims and buddhists, they find it incredibly funny that people get so worked up over just saying "Merry Christmas". In their opinion it is the holiday whether they are a follower of Christ or not. The fact that people get worked up about is suggests that, somehow, there is something to be ashamed of. In fact many of them do not even consider it a particularly religious holiday. In fact I know a couple of Pagans* who mark it as one of their holidays and call it Yule,Winterfest or whatever. Although they occasionally refer to it Christmas* (in general language usage only) and are able to seperate a national holiday from any pro-religious rhetoric. To them it is just a name. Additionally if I decided to move to a country where I was a minority - a Muslim country for example - I would not expect them to rename or change the way they reffer to their holidays just because they might upset me (because they wouldn't, and I would prefer for them to be able to engage in a decent debate instead). I'd rather they just got on with it. Perhaps this says more about America's schizophrenic atitude to religion? Or perhaps the proselytyizing attitude you refer to just doesn't exist here in the UK (or is such a minority as to be irrelevant)?

* I don't like new age religons much. I find them as, or more, irritating than "established" religion as the adherents have this tendence to bring "extra" baggage to discussions. The adherents seem, in general, to be more zealous. Most of them seem to be fervent "anti-now" religions rather than having any extra spiritual insight. In my exerience most followers (with exceptions) are woefully under [or mis] informed about their chosen faith.

[jeff]

Not at all Gav, I'm just saying that (a) it's nicer, more polite to use inclusive language, not that people should get worked up when religion-specific language is used, just as we no longer refer to employees as "men". I personally use Merry Christmas ("Merry Christmas" is used in the US much more than "Happy Christmas") or Happy Holidays, (b) it wouldn't hurt to once in a while see it from the minority perspective as it's so easy to be complacent when one is in the majority, and (c) those who boycott businesses that use religion-neutral language are wrong. To the last part: there is an active movement in the US to do just that (as I showed in the newspaper quote I posted). That's really wrong.

Regarding 'new age' religions, I really can't say. I guess there's nothing like the zeal of the newly converted. I knew one couple who were Wiccans living in the heart of the Bible Belt (Little Rock, Arkansas), nice folks and pretty laid back about it all. If I recall correctly, part of their rituals required going out naked ("skyclad") at solstices, which must have been an interesting experience for them and their neighbors. I sure wouldn't want to do that and freeze in Winter solstice!