Congress draws blood in the "War on Christmas"

[neadods]

My planned rant on the facile faith of the song "Christmas Shoes" has been interrupted by disgusted shock over yesterday's blatant Congressional violation of the First Amendment. Last night Congress voted 401 - 22 to "protect the symbols and traditions of Christmas."

Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;

(2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and

(3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions. (text from Library of Congress website.)

Democrat Steve Israel asked the Republican author of the resolution, Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), if she would permit the symbols of Chanukah and other holidays to be included in the protection of the resolution. She refused. The same site quotes several of the Congresspeople brave enough to stand up for the First Amendment and those of their constituents who are being denied equal protection for their beliefs:

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY): "There are people around who need an enemy at all times to try to separate us one from the other as Americans in order to advance their own agenda. ... To tell the truth, it is slightly offensive to see people trying to create a war and claiming they are attacked just so that they go on the offense instead of the defense. This is a prefabricated issue that has no merit. Nobody is attacking the symbols of Christmas. Are you objecting to our wanting to be included because the symbols of your religion are more important than the symbols of anybody else's religion in America? Or is it because you think that the symbols of your religion are more official?"

-----

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA): "Madam Speaker, this resolution purports to protect the symbols of Christmas, but what really needs to be protected are not the symbols of Christmas, but rather the spirit of Christmas. The spirit of Christmas demands generosity and goodwill towards others. Instead of legislation that respects the spirit of Christmas, Congress in just these past few weeks has passed a budget that includes mean-spirited attacks on the least of us. For those who are hungry, we are cutting food stamps. For those who are sick, we are cutting Medicaid. For those who are in prison, we are imposing senseless mandatory minimums. For others we are ignoring increases in heating costs and cutting student loans. At the same time we are cutting those programs to help the least of us, we are cutting taxes for the wealthiest in society. Madam Speaker, we ought to express our passion for Christmas through deeds, not words; and we should not be distracted from our responsibility to uphold the spirit of Christmas as we consider the effects our actions on the Federal budget will have on the least of us during this holiday season. For these reasons I oppose this resolution."

----

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY): "For someone who does not celebrate Christmas, the question looms: Why? Why not say to someone who wants to make this inclusive that, indeed, we are going to make it inclusive? The symbols of Chanukah are not valuable? Sure, they are, I think. The symbols of Kwanzaa are not valuable to some? Sure, they are. I cannot imagine why the gentlewoman who is the sponsor of this, who says that she speaks from a sense of inclusion, would not want to include those. Are those not worthy of being protected? What is the message that is being sent?"

----

Congressman Dingell, who voted for the resolution, nevertheless raked it down in a satirical poem on his webpage.

The "War on Christmas" just drew blood. So much for "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There are a lot of Jews on my friends list who are furious that Congressional support has been point-blank denied for "the use of [their] symbols and traditions."

And even if O'Reilly gets wind of this and trumpets it as a great victory, we all know that he's going to be screaming about the same "war" next winter holiday season, just has he has for the last two.

Rep Bobby Scott said it best. If you want to keep Christ in Christmas, the best way to do so is to act in a Christlike manner. Not to fulminate about what to call a decorated tree - ESPECIALLY since said tree wasn't a Christian tradition in the first place!

x-posted to dark_christian

Comments

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

But--but---but....The First Amendment?! Buh? Fucking A!

[forked.livejournal.com]

Wow- I think I want to marry Bobby Scott - nice to see a Virginian standing up like that.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I'm so used to snidely believing that Maryland is the progressive state and Virginia is the regressive one - and then Bobby Scott of Virginia has that *wonderful* speech while, I'm ashamed to say, Bartlett of Maryland was one of the sponsors of that pointless, bigoted bill.

[forked.livejournal.com]

I'm so used to snidely believing that Maryland is the progressive state ...

Well, not without reason. That's why it was so nice to see sense coming from a Virginia politician. Well, one of them, anyway.

[tchwrtr.livejournal.com]

I happen to like "Christmas Shoes". So I'm glad you got derailed by Congress. :-p

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Well, perhaps I'll pass on writing it. I find it overtly manipulative, m'self.

[tchwrtr.livejournal.com]

There are several like that--some are good, some aren't. The concept of an innocent child with that much love floors me. Every time, dammit.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

When it's kids singing to adults, it gets me. (Billy Gilman's "One Voice" or whoever that was who did "Dear Mr. Jesus.")

When it's an adult having a religious epiphany due to a major event in their life, that may or may not have a child element, it works. ("Jesus Take the Wheel.")

When it's an adult who has an epiphany when a kid does something kidlike and Finds Jesus Again it gags me. "Help Jesus Pour the Rain" or whatever that was called also rubbed me wrong; Christmas Shoes really gets me because it's as subtle as the last half of ET. It's not the kid that bothers me in those songs, they're just being kids. It's the narrator who strikes me as being shallow - and the songwriter who is so obviously taking the easy way of getting a reaction.

[nycdeb.livejournal.com]

many things go through my mind at this news - WTF? was first. Pandering MORONS was second. And lastly - I'm sorry - was there nothing else on the congressional plate that they needed to spend time on?

what a bunch of sh*theels

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Oh, good gr...um, see the usericon ;-)

I've posted a link here, if you don't mind -- you say it better than I could.

And thank you for doing so.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Don't mind at all. The more the news gets spread, the more the Congresscriters are going to hear from their constituents, and that's a good thing!

(I've got that icon too, and almost used it - but my annoyed angel seems so appropriately seasonal.)

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I just posted this myself, and thought you'd appreciate it (if you don't already read PVP, that is):

http://www.pvponline.com/archive/2005/pvp20051216.gif

Just sayin' :-)

[neadods.livejournal.com]

BWAhahahahaha!

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

HOLY FUCK.

You know, I kept hearing about this "war on Christmas" junk on various blogs, but I had put it down to the echo chamber effect where a lot of bloggers just talk about stuff they see on other people's blogs & on Fox News, & you get a vastly inflated idea of its importance relative to how much people in the outside world know aor care about it.

I really gotta try to be less optimistic.

Still, it isn't Congress, it's the House, which has a habit of passing any old cracktastic bill & then getting smacked back to reality by the Senate. Thank God for the bicameral legislature.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

it's the House, which has a habit of passing any old cracktastic bill & then getting smacked back to reality by the Senate

Ain't that the truth. Still, that they would take time away from a real war, internal refugees, spiraling costs, etc., in order to so blatently trample the First Amendment rights of the minority - *shudder*

[tamnonlinear.livejournal.com]

::blink::

I got at least half way through your post before being convinced this wasn't some sort of horrible joke.

It's a horrible truth instead.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I honestly hoped it was being blown out of proportion and started with the link to the LoC - and there it was, first thing, when you search on "Christmas." Oy to the world.

[shawan-7.livejournal.com]

I believe that symbols and traditions of Christmas would also cover 60% off sales at the Hecht company, and those Old Navy ads.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Probably. O'Reilly keeps talking about businesses and their money as if that was the point of the whole holiday.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

If you want to keep Christ in Christmas, the best way to do so is to act in a Christlike manner. Not to fulminate about what to call a decorated tree - ESPECIALLY since said tree wasn't a Christian tradition in the first place!

You do realize that you're basically saying "If you want to be a good Christian, don't disagree with me about what it means to be a good Christian".

A Christmas tree is a Christmas tree. I say good for the House.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Do you realize that you've just said, "YOUR religion, YOUR feelings, YOUR traditions don't matter -- only MINE do?"

And it's not a Christmas tree, it's a YULE tree. I won't argue with what you choose to call it, but I demand the same courtesy in return -- and that's exactly what the House, and you, have chosen to ignore.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

Do you realize that you've just said, "YOUR religion, YOUR feelings, YOUR traditions don't matter -- only MINE do?"

Funny, I'm looking at my post right now and I don't see that I said that at all. But if it makes it easier to vilify me as an eeevil Christian, knock yourself out.

And it's not a Christmas tree, it's a YULE tree.

*shrugs* I'm just using a word that's in the dictionary. You can call it whatever kind of tree you want, and I'm fairly sure the police won't be beating your door down over it.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Funny, I thought I heard someone say, "A Christmas tree is a Christmas tree. I say good for the House." If you want to say that wasn't agreeing with trampling over the rights of every non-Christian American citizen, you're free to do so, but that won't make it any more true.

I also noticed that you didn't bother to address my point about basic courtesy, and the lack thereof shown by this Congressional vote. But I guess it's easier to vilify me as an eeeevil Liberal, so knock yourself out.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

You do realize that you're basically saying "If you want to be a good Christian, don't disagree with me about what it means to be a good Christian".

Not precisely. Christ himself was quite specific on what he wanted his followers to do - deal with the poor, the hungry, and the homeless, as Rep. Scott pointed out. So I don't think I'm just relying on my own opinions when I say it's better for a Christian to follow the words of Christ in the Bible and not the urgings of Bill O'Reilly on TV.

The founding fathers were equally clear about citizens of all faiths being left to follow those faiths. So it's better for the representatives of the collective people of the United States of America to remember that they answer to *all* of their constituents in a polyreligious society.

I have three decorated trees in my house because I enjoy them, but I'm still an atheist who doesn't see why Congress has to take time out from the serious issues of the day to tell me what to call them. It would make no difference to anyone else's beliefs if I call them Huey, Dewey, and Louie.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

Of course Christians should follow the words and the teachings of Christ. That doesn't mean that O'Reilly and Gibson don't bring up valid points that echo the concerns of many other Americans regarding the secularization of a Christian holiday, especially in the public arena.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I disagree that it's the secularization of a specifically Christian holiday. *Christmas* is Christian - but Hanukka (which also involves presents and therefore is catered to by secular businesses) starts the 24th this year. New Year's is a secular holiday for which people also buy supplies. It's not inconceivable that Ramadan, which "moves" by our calendar can fall over the same time period and I think Diwali Mala might be a moveable holiday as well. Not to mention solstice on the 21st, which is one of the pagan Eight Greats and some others - I'd have to dig through my friends list to find whoever it was who listed ALL the holidays for all the religions he knew in December - it was some 20 entries long.

Each of those is a holy day to someone. Each of those has its own attached merchandising. So I disagree heartily with Bill O'Reilly that secular businesses must greet all of their customers with "Merry Christmas" when there's a conjunction of holidays, all of which those businesses are catering to.

And I certainly think he's being hypocritical to insist that non-Christians can't possibly be offended by the term "Merry Christmas" (except for some defectives who, he decrees, the stores don't want was shoppers anyway) whereas Christians for some reason are supposed to be mortally offended by hearing "Happy Holidays." Particularly since merry and happy are synonyms (they say "Happy Christmas" in Britain instead of "Merry Christmas") and Christmas *is* a holiday. Which means "holy day" so it REALLY boggles me that it's somehow demeaning to a holy day to refer to it as a holiday.

As for secularization of the public arena - the public arena belongs to the entire public, including the minority members. Public arenas are not churches, so why does anyone want them to serve the function of a church? It's not like there aren't plenty of churches to fill that function. And it's not like any of the churches are being muzzled, shut down, or limited in their Christmas displays. That's the biggest (and to me, one of the creepiest) things about O'Reilly's ratings-grabbing rantings about the "war on Christmas." Nobody is doing anything to stop the churches. (Except for what they're doing to themselves, ie, the megachurches which are shutting on Christmas Sunday.) When he talks, it's about business, it's about money, it's about who deserves what money. I don't know why O'Reilly mentions Christ at all, because what he's talking about is the almighty dollar. And Jesus had something very clear to say on that subject too.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

1. The point is that these other holidays aren't being secularized to anywhere near the same extent. At least I haven't come across any non-satirical references to a "Non-Denominational Holiday Candelabra".

2. O'Reilly's never said that businesses MUST use 'Christmas' in their advertising, or encouraged a boycot. He's just pointed out which major retailers cater to the 90-some-odd-percent of their customer base that celebrates Christmas.

3. And I certainly think he's being hypocritical to insist that non-Christians can't possibly be offended by the term "Merry Christmas" ... "Christmas *is* a holiday. Which means "holy day" so it REALLY boggles me that it's somehow demeaning to a holy day to refer to it as a holiday." I'm confused. "Christmas" is offensive but "holy day" isn't?

4. the public arena belongs to the entire public, including the minority members. Sure. That doesn't mean the minority gets to dictate what belongs there. Public arenas are not churches, so why does anyone want them to serve the function of a church? Sooo according to the founding fathers you can only mention the origins of Christmas in a church? Didn't the text of the 1st Amendment already come up in this thread?

[nycdeb.livejournal.com]

The point is that these other holidays aren't being secularized to anywhere near the same extent. At least I haven't come across any non-satirical references to a "Non-Denominational Holiday Candelabra".

Whining about the secularization of a holiday that was placed deliberately into the calendar of a nation that is allegedly founded on the idea of a separation of church and state seems a bit ass backwards. If they are so concerned about the increased secularization of Christmas, why not revoke it's standing as a national holiday. Declare a "winter break" instead in keeping with schools and the congress itself.

They aren't worried about the secularization of Christmas. They are worried that the secular segment of society might be re-asserting itself in the face of the growing theocratic coalition entrenched in DC at the moment. They are using it as a tool to reinvigorate the evangelical and fundamentalist pillars of that coalition. Worse than secularization, this congressional measure is a politicization of this holiday they claim to be protecting.

**the public arena belongs to the entire public, including the minority members.Sure. That doesn't mean the minority gets to dictate what belongs there.**

no, the minority doesn't get to dictate what's there and neither does the government.

Sooo according to the founding fathers you can only mention the origins of Christmas in a church?

no, you can mention it all you want where ever you want but you can't tell someone THEY have to mention it in order to validate YOUR choice.

According to the founding fathers the government shall not endorse a particular religion and that is what this measure voted on does. It violates that tenet. And before anyone trots out the "but it's a national holiday" - the establishment of Christmas as a national holiday is ALSO a violation of the same. So was (and is) the addition of "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. Neither of those facts makes this any less an affront.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

They aren't worried about the secularization of Christmas. They are worried that the secular segment of society might be re-asserting itself in the face of the growing theocratic coalition entrenched in DC at the moment.

Of course that's what they're doing.

(Damn, they figured out the theocractic coalition thing)

My 2 cents... with added ::HeadDesk::

[booraven22.livejournal.com]

I'm just curious why the people behind this movement to "Put Christmas back into the Holiday" are using Retail Stores as their battleground? Weren't they the ones bitching about commercialization of a holy celebration a couple of years back?

And I find it ironic that in the 50s people sent out cards that said Happy Holiday's and no one seemed to get their panties in a bunch back then. It's a tempest in a teapot. I thought faith was a personal thing not a public statement. Does anyone REALLY believe that the Christian Religion as a whole is going to die a flaming death if Joe Smith Greeter at Wal-Mart says "Happy Holidays" to you?

I guess I'm just at a loss for why this brouhaha is occuring in any fashion at all. I don't believe someone wishing you a Happy Holiday is necessarily trying to secularize your religious beliefs. If that alone is enough to shake your faith, then shouldn't you be examining your own beliefs? (by "you" I mean the general "we're offended" populace)

Christmas trees should be called christmas trees. This I have no problem with since the idea is specifically a Christmas icon (and yes, I'm a pagan, so don't start about the pagan history. Saturnalia is this weekend. Hang some fir branches in your house and stop fussing over what we call the fake tree in the city square.)

I also think that the fact that they are wasting time on legislating how we should publicly wear our religions on our sleeves when we've got an economy in the crapper and other more highly volatile issues on the plate seems a little trite and ridiculous.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

The point is that these other holidays aren't being secularized to anywhere near the same extent

The point is that none of these other holidays are addressed at all in the rush to enforce the word Christmas in place of the use of any of the others in secular use, or of generic, inclusive terms in secular use.

O'Reilly's never said that businesses MUST use 'Christmas' in their advertising, or encouraged a boycot.

He's only pointed out which ones do not and hinted strongly that they don't deserve patronage. Same difference.

"Christmas" is offensive but "holy day" isn't?

Please don't put words in my mouth, I did not say that "Christmas" as a word is offensive. Insisting that everyone, Christian or not, use Christmas regardless of their own beliefs is offensive. It's O'Reilly who has outright said that the use of "holiday" is offensive and anti-Christian. I'm making the point that the word "holiday" is neither.

doesn't mean the minority gets to dictate what belongs there

Nor does the majority get to enforce dictate to the minority. The secular aspects of that society should be as inclusive to all citizens as possible. And yes, the First Amendment did come up - and to mandate the use of a particular holiday over any others (especially when it is Congress saying that one is protected and the others are not) is perilously close to establishment. The founders made no exceptions for majority religions.

And for all the arguments that anything is being taken away, the merchandise that O'Reilly wants is still there for the businesses to sell and the people to buy - even religious stuff. Even lots of stuff that says "Merry Christmas." But that doesn't make sense for the Christmas stuff to be promoted exclusively in ads and wording when there are people shopping for their own holidays which are *not* Christmas. The smart business caters to all their clientele and doesn't put one group over the other. Even Fox and O'Reilly themselves offered "holiday ornaments" until they were embarassed into changing it.

Sooo according to the founding fathers you can only mention the origins of Christmas in a church?

That is not what I said. The argument keeps being made that Christmas is endangered somehow. Christmas is a religious observance, and nothing is stopping the houses of worship from observing it. Nothing is stopping them from putting up any decorations they want and calling them anything they want. The "reason for the season" is going on where it always has been - in the places of worship, and in the homes of the worshippers.

But that's not what this so-called "War" is about. O'Reilly is insisting that the greeters and check-out people at stores must lip-sync the greetings of his religion regardless of what they believe. He threatens an economic punishment to stores that do not comply. He complains that those who wish a generic greeting or one that reflect their beliefs instead of his are "mental." This has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. It just causes a great deal of fuss and anger allowing people who aren't being denied anything to cry "Oppression!"

O'Reilly in particular is hypocritical because he used the same generic terminology on his own website. He is unBiblical in putting mammon over God. If he were really worried that Christmas was being celebrated, he might have something to say about the churches which have decided to shut down on Christmas Day and instead give their members a DVD to watch.

There is nothing you can say that will convince me that a DVD will take the place of a church service, or that what is said by the checkout person when you pick up a DVD at Target is as important than, much less more important than, what is said in a church.

[booraven22.livejournal.com]

Word Mc Frikkin Word, Nea!

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

There is nothing you can say that will convince me that a DVD will take the place of a church service, or that what is said by the checkout person when you pick up a DVD at Target is as important than, much less more important than, what is said in a church.

Shucks, then I guess I'm a failure.

*cough*