On Christmas - OPEN LETTER TO TRAVIS
Travis, please have a read through this article discussing the analytical error Christians are making in protesting the "Happy Holidays" phrase and so forth at Target and so forth.
Here are two quotes from the article which I consider the most important:
On the idea that the White House sending non-religious cards and Target saying "Happy Holidays" is bad:
- In what way does the failure of the White House and commercial venues somehow impinge on the right of American families and churches to celebrate Christmas in any manner that they choose? It does not, of course. [American families and churches] are free to remember its true meaning and not treat it as a secular occasion, just as secular venues (such as government) are free to set aside its religious meaning. For Christmas to be both secular and religious is consistent with the idea of freedom.
(emphasis mine)
On the idea that forcing people to behave in a way an interest group (such as fundamentalist Christians) is appropriate:
- Coercion only forces people to change their actions; it does not persuade people to change their underlying values and convictions. And since those already convinced of the moral rules would abide by them without coercion, the only real impact of compulsory morality is to engender hypocrites, those whose actions no longer reflect their inner convictions.
Thank you, and Merry Christmas.
9 Comments:
What I found interesting about that article is that the War on Christmas is apparently being led by....THE WHITE HOUSE. The HOLIDAY card sent out by the White House said, "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."
Bush is, therefore, a General in the War on Christmas.
Does anyone else see the irony and lunacy in that argument? Clearly there is no War on Christmas.
Now shut the hell up and Happy Holidays!!!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
As "Fundamentalist Christian", I could care less who says "Happy Holidays". They're the ones that sound silly, not me.
This entry was not intended to be confrontational. This entry was intended to be edifying. The point of the article I referenced was that (1) asking people to say Merry Christmas who don't mean it is not productive and (2) Christians who want to support Christmas aren't harmed by businesses that want to cater to Christians and other holiday-celebrators or governments which resist endorsing one religion over another. It was probably a poor choice of words on my part to say "fundamentalist Christian," as I should have appreciated the intolerants on the political Left use that phrase as a weapon or term of derision. That certainly wasn't what I meant to connote.
I am in favor of freedom. Merchants should have freedom to cater to their customers in whatever they perceive is the most profitable way. Customers/people should have freedom to celebrate whatever holidays they want to celebrate, be those holidays religious or secular. Governments should stay secular.
Frankly, I think the White House should save the taxpayers the money it costs to send out cards to whoever is on that list. But that's an argument for a different day.
I took no offense at your post, no worries. I agree with all you've written on the subject.
Although many people may know me as an intolerant ass, I depart from many of my religious bretheren on matters of personal freedom.
That having been said, we've decided to skip the Festivus pole this year.
That son of a bitch Bush didn't send me a card this year. He's been removed from my mailing list for next year.
Can someone wake me up on 27 December please?
Jungle Jane - do you want me to phone you or nudge you?
This war on Christmas will soon end with Agent Orange.
Happy Birthday Jesus!
Post a Comment
<< Home