Creature of Mad Enthusiasms

Whenever the media hype starts paying attention to people who bitch that Christmas isn't being "properly" celebrated in the public square and that any multiculturalism is anti-Christian, I always wonder how many of them could be gulled into signing a petition to celebrate Christmas exactly as the founding Puritans did.

Because I'm betting that most of those loyal God-fearin' patriots dittoing Rush and riled by O'Reilly don't know that Between 1659 and 1681, Christmas celebrations were outlawed in [Massachusetts], and the law declared that anyone caught "observing, by abstinence from labor, feasting or any other way any such days as Christmas day, shall pay for every such offense five shillings." ... As late as 1869, public-school kids in Boston could be expelled for skipping class on Christmas Day.

Those godless bastard Puritans! And their heathen brethren the Quakers, Seperatists, and - oops! - Baptists.

Kinda puts the "offense" of saying "Happy Holidays" in perspective, dunnit?

Fic rec - short and heartbreaking post "Human Nature/Family of Blood" Joan drabble, White Lie

puppetmaker40 linked to both of these: The Life and Death of Jesse James (about the real wreckage left by a sockpuppet) and When the Fan Hits The Shit (about a phony charity scam pulled on Lord of the Rings fans. Think it couldn't happen to your fandom? Yeah, that's what we in the Rupert Giles fanclub thought too.)

parrotfish has an article about interracial marriage statistics in England and the US.. This, along with a side conversation I've been having makes me want to write an analytical meta about primate behavior and "othering" but it's not jelling into anything coherent. The basic gist is this: We are all primates. In all times and places and cultures under it all, we exhibit primate behavior, including "othering" - the suppression/brutalization of whatever is "not us" for any given value of "us."

This is NOT, however, to say that "we're just like that so what's to worry" because that's NOT THE POINT, not to mention untrue. The point is that we can and *should* rise above that, just like we recognize and rise above a whole hell of a lot of default human behavior.

But every time I try to get this to turn into a thesis, I end up with a melange of Tom Lehrer singing "National Brotherhood Week" and Pratchett ("humanity is where the falling angel meets the rising ape") and Captain Kirk saying "I will not kill... today." (That latter being a fairly good summary of the point that I'm flailing towards. Our unadulterated basic nature is pretty shitty. But we can recognize that and not be assholes... today.)

And because the Presidential race needs help and the backlash against the far-right attacking a 12-year-old kid is getting nasty, the good old "War on Christmas" is being dusted off early. Doubtless I'll get to a good meta/rant on this later, but right now all I can think is the unadorned thesis: Don't these "warriors" realize that when they attack businesses which *do* actually have Christmas stuff but say "Happy Holidays" for the purposes of including all customers, the warriors are 1) fairly obviously conflating Christ and Mammon, about which the Bible has a few things to say and 2) fetishizing the words "Merry Christmas"? Not Jesus, not the religion, but four syllables that do not appear anywhere in the Bible?

(I am suddenly reminded of a friend who was Born Again. It was the fashion in her church to say "Luke 2:12" when looking for something. Not the actual verse, not the object being searched for, just say "Luke two-twelve" in the knowledge that Jesus would - eventually - tell her where to find said object.

She went utterly ballistic when I pointed out that was ritual magic.)



Even I have no clue why I'm posting this or how (un)popular it might make me. And yet I'm about to hit post anyway. If anyone responds, maybe the stuck essays will rattle loose.

I'll be typing up the fic and the Sarah Jane essay tonight. They have the added advantage of thought and coherence.

Someone over on fanthropology of all places has hijacked a thread on use of religion in Harry Potter fanon with what are doubtless the first shots fired in this year's "War on Christmas."

Mind you, when called out on the sentence It's now ILLEGAL to say "Merry Christmas" for public adverts on TV, radio, and print, his/her response was should have been more clear. What was typed was perfectly clear. It was also perfectly wrong.

I know that the Christmas sales season creeps earlier every year, but August is way too early to be dealing with this crap. Can we at least get the temperature below 80 before we have to deal with this year's round of OMGWTFXMAS!!!! or whatever it's going to be dubbed this next joyous holiday season?

ETA: What is it today, Schmucks on LJ on Parade? Now twistedchick has a troll who has "rebutted" her link to Alas, A Blog's Male Privilege Checklist with the "Nice Guy's Rebuttal," which includes, among other things, a complaint that women shouldn't bitch about being passed over for jobs and promotions because of their gender when they can use their sex appeal (or straight out sex) to get work. No, I'm not direct linking, I'm not going to encourage the hits on that website. Check TC's comments, unless she pulls that one.

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