Julian Sanchez meditates on the passion of the Christians.
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|12.20.04 @ 10:59PM|#
Since it's not okay to say "Happy Holidays", how about "Fuck off and Die"? It doesn't sound anti-Christian, does it?
WSDave
|12.20.04 @ 11:34PM|#
Spurious claims of victimhood: Not just for leftists anymore!
And I'd just like to wish everybody a very politically incorrect MERRY CHRISTMAS (or whatever else floats your boat)!
|12.20.04 @ 11:49PM|#
"...we can all breathe a little easier knowing that the anti-Christmas "jihad" is no more real (sorry kids) than Santa Claus."
I'm a dyed in the wool atheist, but sorry Julian I don't buy this one. This whole thing smacks way too much of liberal left political correctness (which is very much alive, even if saying "PC" is no longer PC).
I wouldn't defend either the PC Liberal Left or the Religious Right, very far. But I do think we see a real idealogical battle here. You know, like, don't you hear the cats hissing in the alley? MrreeeOOOWWW!!!
Christmas to me is a holiday and that's it. It's MY holiday dammit. I don't care who made it up when or for what. If you want to believe it's to honor the Man in the Moon, I could care less. So without apology or guilt I use the phase we Americans (er, at least *most* of us) grew up using --
Merry Christmas everyone.
|12.21.04 @ 12:23AM|#
Speaking as an atehistic skeptic i'm inclined to agree with this column. The problem is that christians seem to be the one group of people that can be abused without americans carrying. Not here, of course, american christians are loud at any remotely perceived complaint. But how many human rights group noted the abuse suffered by the southern sudanese (most of whom were not in fact christians) How many noticed that the Chinese government, in one crackdown against Christians killed a dozen or so, arested a couple of thousand and sexually mutilated a hundred or even two hundred women? Christians don't get the rights they deserve when they're abused. Is it a surprise then that they're paranoid even when they're not?
|12.21.04 @ 12:29AM|#
"As the days grow shorter, conservative activists claiming to speak for American Christendom raise their voices,..."
Indeed, no one can speak for American Christendom. Many true Christians refuse to speak of themselves publicly; how can anyone claim to speak for people who won't speak of themselves?
Warren|12.21.04 @ 12:55AM|#
THANK YOU JULIAN
Thank you oh so much. That was wonderful. The whole piece is chuck full of delicious zingers, but this hast to be the money quote: "National Review's John Derbyshire reports bristling at these two seemingly innocuous words with the sort of fascinated intensity he normally reserves for buggery."
Joyous Solstice Everyone
raymond|12.21.04 @ 12:56AM|#
I just read the various links to the story on the "banning" of the Declaration of Independence and the California teacher.
(two snide remarks)
Yesterday on CBS Evening News, it was reported that 64% of American students do not read to grade standard proficiency level. So, whether they get the Declaration and the handouts, I wouldn't worry too much. Only a minority will have any idea what they all mean anyway.
Having read several pro-capital punishment comments here which refer to the Declaration as "utopian", which define "unalienable" to mean... "alienable", and which declare that we are granted our rights by the State, I've come to the conclusion that the Declaration isn't important in modern American thought anyway.
M€RR¥ ¢HRI$$MA$
|12.21.04 @ 1:08AM|#
Well, at least in this country it's just a skunk fight. And they're just little, teeny, runt sized skunks. More than anything I find the racket annoying. I wish they'd shut up and leave each other be so we can just enjoy the holiday. Tolerance is a virtue both sides preach, in their own contexts.
I agree with white. In the PC world it's ok to put down christians. In fact it's part of the agenda. 'Course, in the Christian world those PC'ers have always been evil secular humanists. So we get spats about God and evolution and all that in the schools. Hmmm. Might, perchance, we need to change our school systems?
But who can speak for whom? There's a million flavors of "Christian". Christians rarely appreciate that there are also a million flavors of atheists.
You guys remind me we ought to be glad that round here, it's just a runt sized skunk fight and not a war. Though in fact, religious wars have rarely, really, been about religion. Religion was just the window dressing.
|12.21.04 @ 1:27AM|#
Thank you, excellent article. I'm sending a link to all my Christian friends. I particularly liked the Christian anti-Christmas link. I had no idea Christmas didn't catch on here until the mid-late 1800s. Learn something every day.
|12.21.04 @ 1:28AM|#
Today's crybaby Christers have got to be the biggest goddamn pussies in the history of the faith. Peter was crucified upside down for his Lord; but say "Happy Holidays" to these whiners and they act like are being persecuted. Get real.
May you get all your wishes fulfilled by Santa Christ, errr, Jesus Claus, errr...whatever--merry freaking Xmas.
|12.21.04 @ 1:32AM|#
"a young singer who wants to incorporate her faith into her music is now likely to narrowcast to a Christian rock audience because, well, she can."
Sorry Julian, no dice with not with the likes of Creed, U2 - and country music. (And the fact that hip-hop, which you gave a pass, dominates the charts.)
Rather, there happens to be a growing niche in Christian Rock, and consequently another formula for bands to follow in order to be palatable to a mass of people.
Also, Gza's B.I.B.L.E. is pretty heretical - and I'd be willing to bet that most expressions of faith by hip-hop stars are just as likely to outrage christian conservatives as the more common sex-drugs-violence lyrics (certainly true w/ the Wu, Jay-Z, Nas...)
|12.21.04 @ 1:38AM|#
Peter was crucified upside down for his Lord; but say "Happy Holidays" to these whiners and they act like are being persecuted.
I think that says it all!
|12.21.04 @ 2:21AM|#
Although the Christians are right to perceive anti-religious biases in various domains, I think it's mostly imagination here. The issue is so marginal, though, one just wants to discourage the whole issue from existing. I couldn't care less what people greet each other with.
Good article, many good points. But it's got that Reasonish "everything is really okay" tempermental kind of vibe, and I would like to state for the record: things really aren't okay, in some ways. We may live in peace, but I'm quite opposed to religion and will take every opportunity to denigrate believers. They're right to perceive me, a rigid atheist, as their enemy. I'll try to indoctrinate their kids, I will spread bile and hate toward them, I hate their fucking cult, I hate they are taken seriously and in every way, short of direct violence and governmental interference, I wish their absolute destruction.
Merry Christmas!
|12.21.04 @ 2:58AM|#
I'll try to indoctrinate their kids, I will spread bile and hate toward them, I hate their fucking cult, I hate they are taken seriously and in every way, short of direct violence and governmental interference, I wish their absolute destruction.
Ah, now I know why Christians feel so persecuted! ;->
|12.21.04 @ 4:24AM|#
Seems to me maybe there really, really is just a teeny, teensy little bit of genuine anti-Christian hatin' going on here.
"He was an embittered atheist (the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him)."
-- George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London
I know the type.
Merry Christmas!
|12.21.04 @ 4:38AM|#
Happy VooDoo Day to all.
See you soon,
Geophile (Off to leave out brains and chicken blood for Zombie Claus...)
|12.21.04 @ 4:53AM|#
In order to pull off the sort of grab at victim status conservatives used to deride as a tactic of the left, self-appointed defenders of the faith draw from a cornucopia of bogus anecdotes about oppression.
Pulled at random almost, but at a peak of irritation. Jeez, are there about a thousand extra words in that or what? I don't know, the audible word processor hum or something is getting to me. Put away Hunsberger's Quintessential Dictionary or whatever it is and see if the same sentiment, or any sentiment, can be put in words with Anglo-Saxon roots exclusively.
Or at least a little irony is called for, about positions depending on subordinate clauses and hammer blows from attributive adjectives.
Or make it a challenge, and do everything with adverbials.
I'm as atheist as they come, but I'd like to hear Oh Little Town of Bethlehem and stuff occasionally amidst the commercial happy-junk. It reminds me of my childhood and the season and gift anticipation, that's why. You got off from school long enough that it seemed at the moment like you'd never have to go back
|12.21.04 @ 4:55AM|#
But how many human rights group noted the abuse suffered by the southern sudanese (most of whom were not in fact christians) - w e w
These guys, Anti-Slavery International http://www.antislavery.org and http://www.freetheslaves.net and
http://www.iabolish.com - The American Anti-Slacery Group
all called attention to Sudanese slavery, along with various churches.
The "Happy Holidays" greeting for shoppers is mostly about avoiding an ugly scene should a retail employee wish the blessings of the wrong holiday to someone who is tetchy about such things. I'm spending my first X-Mas in 26 years OUT of retail, and I don't miss the tsuris that hits this time of year. In my last selling gig our clientele was so regular that I often knew the preference of my customers, and could wish them a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah or Super Solstice depending on what they celebrated, but a seasonal employee at BigBoxCo probably wouldn't have that rapport with the customer.
As a kid I remember the Knights of Columbus pushing "Keep Christ in Christmas" bumper stickers. "Jesus Is The Reason For The Season" seems to be the modern evangelical equivalent. That those of other or no faith can point to celebrations that pre-date Christianity's co-option of the winter festivals doesn't seem to persuade, that anti-Xmas Xtian site notwithstanding. Grumbles were sometimes heard about the prominence of Santa and reindeer in our town's decorations. Since they were paid for by the Chamber of Commerce to hang from storefronts whose tenants were overwhelmingly Jewish, that made a lot of sense. There were angels, snowflakes and a menorah, too - a little something for everybody.
How does it hurt anyone if the creche people would want to see on the lawn outside City Hall is instead hosted by the Kiwanis club? That's in the "public square," in the sense that the space is open to the public, even if it is private property.
Everyone please enjoy the holiday of your choice!
Kevin
|12.21.04 @ 5:08AM|#
Persecution is part of the Christian identity (not be confused with movement). Indeed, the New Testament discusses how Christians will be viewed as a people apart, etc., and that they should expect persecution. In other words, they are primed and ready for someone to "oppress" them. Case in point, the destruction of the the Holy Sepulchre by the Caliph of Egypt al-Hakim in 1009 CE created such a "persecution movement" (exploited by Pope Urban II) that it spawned the Crusades in 1095 CE, even though the church was rebuilt (with money from the successor of al-Hakim's treasury) in 1048 CE.
|12.21.04 @ 7:12AM|#
I'm as atheist as they come, but I'd like to hear Oh Little Town of Bethlehem and stuff occasionally amidst the commercial happy-junk.
They sell something called "recorded music" now, if you're interested. Find out more at your local library!
Anyone who bothers to actually get offended and angry at something as pleasant and unhateful as "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" has far, far too much time on their hands, and probably unrelated and unresolved mental issues.
|12.21.04 @ 8:17AM|#
Here I'm seeing much of that sloppy tactic of choosing to refute only the most extreme, ridiculous, and demagogic behaviors of one's opponents, julian the worst offender. Anyone care to exercise their brains usefully and make libertarian policy on creche scenes on public property and in schools, with a basis in law? (Instead of this WEAK referendum on the Macy's sales associate manual?)
|12.21.04 @ 8:26AM|#
Julian:
Thanks for an excellent article.
However, I think that the secularists do go way too far at times:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12388-2004Dec19.html?sub=AR
This story is about a kid in school who wasn't permitted to hand out candy canes with a goofy JAY-sus message attached. This was a student, not a teacher.
We harp on school administrators all the time who lack the spine to allow anything remotely controversial. This includes other officials in government who are terrified of offending anyone, including atheists, witches, agnostic Buddhists, whatever. I find this suppression just as obnoxious as bible-thumping demogoguery.
|12.21.04 @ 8:49AM|#
Julian--
I enjoyed the article. However, the phrase "post-Ramadan pig-out" made me wince.
How's that for being hyper-sensitive? :-)
|12.21.04 @ 9:06AM|#
First let me say that I agree with most of the comments here, including the ones calling anyone a wussy for believing others saying "Happy Holidays" is in anyone offensive.
Having said that, don't you think the reason people get upset isn't because others say "Happy Holidays", but in their work, schools, and every place eles, they are told *not* to say "Merry Christmas?"
This of course doesn't explain the religious right's crusade for victimhood status, but I think offers a viable reason why those same "leaders" gain support from normal everyday citizens and not simply those on the fringes.
For full disclosure: I don't belong to any denomonation, never did and don't go to church, and completely disagree with almost every aspect of organized religion (some charitable work is extremely worthy).
|12.21.04 @ 9:08AM|#
Not sure why it's so problematic that Christians might be offended by "Happy Holidays".
Stevo, I know the type, too. Good call.
Merry Christmas and Merry Consume-mas!
|12.21.04 @ 9:09AM|#
Geophile:
I didn't talk about creche scenes because they don't seem to be a main focus of the fuss this year. Anyway, no cranial exercise is required; there's plenty of legal precedent on the question, it's just of the annoyingly vague "I know it when I see it" variety, since it makes the legality turn on the whole context of the display, whether the creche is central, and so on. Which actually seems about right, even if it's less clear cut than one might like.
|12.21.04 @ 9:43AM|#
The way the Religious Right is using the phrase "Merry Christmas" is a perfect microcosm of their religious and political philosophy. They take a message that was created as a blessing, and turn it into an ugly weapon, destroying the actual message (a wish that people be happy) so that it can more effectively serve as a way of insulting, excluding, and demeaning people who are different from themselves.
People who use Christ's name to make others feel bad are going to hell.
|12.21.04 @ 9:45AM|#
.. so many Christians, so few lions ..
.. Happy Solstice, the real reason for the season ..
|12.21.04 @ 9:46AM|#
Happy Festivus!
|12.21.04 @ 9:48AM|#
"People who use Christ's name to make others feel bad are going to hell."
Dead right.
gaius marius|12.21.04 @ 10:00AM|#
to quote mr nice guy:
This story is about a kid in school who wasn't permitted to hand out candy canes with a goofy JAY-sus message attached. This was a student, not a teacher.
allow me to repeat what some others here have said to qualify themselves as "objective": i'm not a religious fellow.
but to pretend that christianity -- and religious feeling in general -- hasn't been driven from the culture at every opportunity is to have missed the narrative of modern civilization! mr sanchez, have you read nietzsche? he wasn't possible even in the age of reason -- and his christophobe rants are now hallowed doctrine in western intellectual life, which has been (supposedly, but as with all inquisitions not truly) purged of the heresy of belief on the grounds that it cannot be proved.
well, of course it can't -- neither can spinoza. does that make it reviling? or unnecessary?
i think we tend to underestimate the profound -- and quite new -- effects of science and secularism on our method of modern thought -- and, consequently, we tend to unconsciously deny the importance of our irrational being (which is to say, the majority of all of us animals).
people have always demonstrated a need for mysticism; belief is so intrinsic to human behavior (even if your belief is scientism) that it is probably hardwired.
as this decadent civilization crumbles under the weight of gross individualism, i think we're seeing a lot of common people who perceive the growing social decay and live in a state of oppressive fear of it -- provoking a primitivist response, related to romanticism, that harkens back to that which is perceived to have been lost: mystery.
for many people in america, that mystery means christianity -- or rather, reductive christian cults, many of which are radically reactionary hero-cults and unrelated to the complex philosophical christian tradition -- but we've also seen flowerings in the 20th c west of faux buddhism, kaballah, and (more subtly) abject faith in "science".
this search for mysticism is no different, imo, than the rise of eastern cults in the late roman empire as the society of the ancient world began to rot with excessive individual prerogative -- or the italian mystic reverence of ancient thought in the antisociety of machiavellian italian city-states.
|12.21.04 @ 10:00AM|#
Having said that, don't you think the reason people get upset isn't because others say "Happy Holidays", but in their work, schools, and every place eles, they are told *not* to say "Merry Christmas?"
Very good point.
Although "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" sound like some robot at a PR firm made them up, though...might as well say "Enjoy the bitter cold!" There's really nothing behind them when said. Of course, most people don't mean anything by "Merry Christmas" either. The whole "holiday season" is just an excuse to get lazy and drunk during the cold weather. I'd actually prefer it if the holidays happened sometime in late January, when it's _really_ cold and miserable.
Hans|12.21.04 @ 10:02AM|#
Having said that, don't you think the reason people get upset isn't because others say "Happy Holidays", but in their work, schools, and every place eles, they are told *not* to say "Merry Christmas?"
I think that is the real issue.
I was watching football this weekend, where someone was dressed as Santa Claus in the stands, and the announcer actually said, "Happy Holidays, Santa!" I mean, come on, what stands for Christmas more than Santa?
Oh yeah, Jesus.
|12.21.04 @ 10:03AM|#
Given the tone of many of the postings, I believe that some of you guys would be more than happy to force your beliefs on me if you actually had any.
|12.21.04 @ 10:13AM|#
Gaius, I may not agree with you 100%, but you raise some very interesting, and dire, points. If what you say is true (and it is indeed convincing) this doesn't bode well for our civilization. That is, the rise of the mystic cults throughout history were rarely followed by periods of great prosperity. (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an historian.)
That may coincidental, but it's certainly frightening considering that the human need for mystery seems as poorly understood today as in the past; and could lead to reactionary cults rather than complex, and sometimes slow, philosophical development. Dare I say this may be a value of small "c" conservatism?
|12.21.04 @ 10:23AM|#
"People who use Christ's name to make others feel bad are going to hell."
There's certainly a Commandment about that, it's probably a sin. Still, that just means that such people need to be forgiven.
I'd like to see some inter-faith coordination on sermon topics; I'm picturing a weekend where thousands of churches all over America hear a sermon about the fanaticism of Paul prior to his conversion.
|12.21.04 @ 10:29AM|#
Excellent article, but a connection needs to be drawn to a larger point. In my opinion the distinction is disappearing between anti-religion and anti-promotion-of-religion.
I think there is a concerted effort by a small segment of the population to remove religion from its rightful place in the general history of our country. The LA city emblem case comes to mind. The fact that our religious history is overwhelmingly Christian makes it seem like this is anti-Christian intead of what it really is: anti-religion.
Public display of religion is fine so long as government doesn't advocate ::key word:: one over the other. Displays on public property hardly seemd to say that one religion is better than others, its just reflective of the majority sense, whether its a menorah in a Jewish community or a nativity scene in a Christian one.
And speaking of religion and government promotion of systems, is Adam Smith's invisible hand really any different than most theistic concepts?
Background: I was raised Catholic and have come to find organized religion as nonsensical. I'm not atheist, agnostic, deist, Christian or anything. I just don't give a shit.
|12.21.04 @ 10:44AM|#
It's not just a matter of refraining from promoting one religion over another, it's also a matter of promoting "religion" over "no religion," ape. (In that sense, naming a city "Los Angeles" was probably an oversight. But we can't blame the Spanish, can we?)
What we need to do, as a secular community, is appropriate these religious symbols and holidays as secular cultural ones. Like we did with Halloween. Trust me, nothing would piss off Falwell more than seeing Jews greet each other with "Merry Christmas!"
fyodor|12.21.04 @ 10:47AM|#
Irving Berlin wrote "Happy Holiday" for the 1942 movie, Holiday Inn. The movie also included White Christmas. Berlin, although perhaps an evil Jewish Christ-hater, also wrote God Bless America. I won't deny there's a lot of animus towards religion in America, and maybe this anti-Happy Holidays stupidity is payback. But it's still stupid. The phrase, "Happy Holidays" is not some nouveau PC term. I've seen it used at least as much as Merry Christmas since I was a kid. As a secular, agnostic Jew myself, I think people who take offense at Merry Christmas are being silly and hypersensitive. But taking offense at those people and taking offense that some want to show those folks consideration is at least as bad, and worse when it becomes the moral and victimhood-based crusade that Julian aptly describes. If you wanna say Merry Christmas, fine. If others around you want to say Happy Holidays (or tell their employees to, like the announcers on network TV) and that pisses you off, that's your own problem. I don't know if you're going to hell, but it must be hell on your blood pressure.
Happy everydays!
|12.21.04 @ 10:56AM|#
"People who use Christ's name to make others feel bad are going to hell."
Now that the subject is open, I will give you heathens an exclusive peek into my 2004 top 10 list of people going to hell:
Scott Peterson
That fetus-stealing skank
Martha Stewart
Donald Rumsfeld
Opra
Ann Coulter
Michael Powell
The entire Office of National Drug Control Policy
Roy Moore
joe
|12.21.04 @ 11:00AM|#
I distinctly remember a sermon from my childhood where the priest said "If you find yourself believing that all the people you hate are going to hell, then you mistakenly believe that God was made in your image, and not the other way around."
I find it useful to try to keep that in mind.
|12.21.04 @ 11:04AM|#
C,
It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. I know the phrase is a bit played, but it still right. Public domain is for use by all.
|12.21.04 @ 11:09AM|#
You're mistaken, ape. The belief in no God is just as legitimate as the belief in any particular one.
|12.21.04 @ 11:14AM|#
Yeah, well, down the hatch.
|12.21.04 @ 11:15AM|#
C,
Just as you shouldn't be stopped from celebrating you atheism outside of your own home, neither should those who do have a theistic base. Public display of religious nature does nothing to delegitimize those who are non-religious. Religiously exclusive law is where the problems arise. Should the governor's mansion be off limits to religious display just b/c the state owns the house? A gov shouldn't be denied his right to practice in his home.....
|12.21.04 @ 11:29AM|#
Ape, you know that's not tenable. What if my religion's core belief is the eradication of other religions? (In fact, that is one of the beliefs of Christianity....) Religions aren't rational, they're not compatible, there's nothing to say that honoring one of them doesn't violate another. Pretending that you can pay respect to all of these religions by piling dozens of religious symbols onto the town mall is absurd.
Read my previous post - personally i think that we should pile the town mall with whatever religious symbols that tickle our fancy, excluding whichever ones we feel like. This doesn't really respect these religions, but I don't care. The fact that we're appropriating these symbols as cultural symbols does truly represent our cultural belief that wherever we came from, we're here together now and we can in fact find a way to respect each other.
|12.21.04 @ 11:40AM|#
alright, "eradication" is probably an overstatement. But as a true believer I do have an obligation to save your soul. And that does include getting you to renounce all those false idols.
|12.21.04 @ 11:54AM|#
C,
Your first paragraph is part of the reason why I think organized religion is an absurd concept. I also have no interest in paying respect to any religion. When was the last time regulation of anything this ubiquitous worked out? Never. Letting the pile-on proceed is answer to the problem. It will work itself out after it reaches a point of absurdity. It's like the self-induced vomiting of an 80lb girl who drank too much.
You should come over to my apt and we'll get liquored up and throw snowballs at the different religious parties bickering over every square inch of public space. It'll be great fun.
|12.21.04 @ 12:07PM|#
the christians can have christmas for all i care. i'm perfectly secure in my deistic/agnostic beliefs to not really care either way.
what annoys me is when the religious right starts talking about how this is a country founded upon judeo-christian principles. they use that argument for everything from gay marriage to something silly like merry christmas so they can use it whenever they feel like it. should we really say merry christmas just because this country was supposedly founded by judeo christian principles? this country was originally founded by native americans should we start practicing their holidays and customs?
this country wasn't founded on judeo-christian principles anyway. our founding fathers were deists and the declaration of independence reflects that. i'd rather they not discuss the declaration of independence in schools. you know they're going to get it wrong. why can't we have a holiday that truly reflects our roots? Happy Day of Reason or Happy Deist Day.
|12.21.04 @ 12:16PM|#
Tim,
Some were deists, many were definitely not (Wm Pitt is just one example). The non-deists were certainly christian.
gaius marius|12.21.04 @ 12:20PM|#
Pretending that you can pay respect to all of these religions by piling dozens of religious symbols onto the town mall is absurd.
and yet that's just what the classical world did for centuries. the notion of religious exclusion was extremely revolting to the romans when christianity first appeared.
gaius marius|12.21.04 @ 12:45PM|#
this country wasn't founded on judeo-christian principles anyway.
that depends on what you mean by 'judeo-christian principles'.
certainly, most of the founders were deists (like most learned men of the 18th c) and not dogmatic -- but they were all christians too, believing of a god and in the morality articulated in the bible. of the founders, only a few truly ridiculed christian precepts -- most famously, jefferson, who was instead a disciple of rousseau.
but this is not what modern christian-hero-cultists mean, of course. they mean virulent and intolerant -- rather the philosophical opposite of locke, whose influence and moderation was so paramount to them and all english parliamentarians following the english civil war.
believing they meant their republic to be either a exclusively christian nation or a secular nation misunderstands profoundly the climate of their times -- or, indeed, the nature of christianity post-reformation. they meant it to be a tolerant society, first and foremost.
of course, that modern cultists ignore the fractionation of christianity after calvin is part and parcel to the ignorance of history that is so common to our increasingly illiterate times. in a society fleeing the past, how can they be expected to learn and understand it? so they end up with a half-assed compromise -- christian nameplate and (unread) book, augustinian mysticism but nietzschean mechanism.
|12.21.04 @ 1:15PM|#
Aaaaaargh! I didn't realize that even Buddhists ban free expression and promote state sponsored religion. I'm so disillusioned! Buddha help me!!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1548&ncid=1548&e=12&u=/afp/20041220/lf_afp/afplifestylecambodia_041220160407
|12.21.04 @ 1:16PM|#
gaius,
I don't think that the modern rise of fundamentalism, evangelicalism, New Age spirituality, etc., are analagous to the growth of mystery cults in the late Roman Empire. It's simply a result of American society; we every so often go through these things called "Awakenings," you know. Just wait it out, and the whole thing will blow over. This particular one is exacerbated by the fact that there are a lot of questions that our society is facing that it never has before, like the place of homosexuality in our culture, the place of women in religious and public life, things like that. It's still no big deal. Give it a couple decades, and things will be back to "normal."
By the by, does anyone else think that the unique vitality of religion in American society has anything to do with the lack of any established church? The European churches all had (and many still have) a guaranteed income from taxes, so they don't really have to do anything to attract followers. They don't have to meet the religious needs of their adherents, so the clergy are free to go off on their own little flights of fancy and not do anything to feed their flock. In America, on the other hand, the clergy have to find ways to keep their flock coming in, so they have to listen to what their congregation wants from them. It's an altogether better relationship, and now the same people who have benefitted from it want to do away with it. Silly people.
|12.21.04 @ 2:33PM|#
i don't think things will ever go back to "normal" - the lid goes back on only with great effort, usually of the cutting, burning and slashing type.
i deeply disagree with mr. gaius, though i love reading his well-written texts and am intrigued by many of his arguments about responsibility. being agnostic, the sort of insanely flexible, ahistorical spiritual anarchism we're undergoing is a Good Thing (TM). it may be fleeing the past, but in many respects - especially individual conscience - the past is worth fleeing from headlong.
|12.21.04 @ 3:03PM|#
ALthough it will get ignored this far downthread, it's also worth noting that "Happy Holidays" (which, as noted by fyodor, has been in common use for more than a half-century) accomplishes in two words what "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year" -- the two "holidays" probably referred to when the phrase sprang into use -- accomplishes in six.
|12.21.04 @ 3:46PM|#
I'm still listening, Phil.
gaius marius|12.21.04 @ 3:53PM|#
It's simply a result of American society; we every so often go through these things called "Awakenings," you know. Just wait it out, and the whole thing will blow over.
in the shorter run, mr grylliade, i agree -- fits and starts, you know. but the overall flow -- going back into the 19th c and romanticism -- is, i think, fundamentally driving people to mysticism in reaction to the excesses of the age of reason.
only time will tell -- historiography is scholarly, but not scientific, and i can offer no falsifiability.
being agnostic, the sort of insanely flexible, ahistorical spiritual anarchism we're undergoing is a Good Thing (TM). it may be fleeing the past, but in many respects - especially individual conscience - the past is worth fleeing from headlong.
:) mr dhex, it will be acknowledged that you are thoroughly modern.
|12.21.04 @ 3:57PM|#
Gaius,
"...driving people to mysticism in reaction to the excesses of the age of reason."
This is where I might disagree. Perhaps people are driven to mysticism by thier fear, or inability to accept reason. That is, I'm not convinced that the excesses of today are excesses of reason, but rather a cowering from reason.
|12.21.04 @ 3:58PM|#
Oh, and I don't mean for reason to be synonymous with science, for the same reason it is not synonymous with mathematics.
|12.21.04 @ 4:10PM|#
People who use Christ's name to make others feel bad are going to hell.
There is that. I've never been a big fan of what I call "Nyah-Nyah Christianity."
gaius marius|12.21.04 @ 7:25PM|#
That is, I'm not convinced that the excesses of today are excesses of reason, but rather a cowering from reason.
mr wellfellow, i'd agree today. i think most historians see the reaction beginning with romanticism -- beginning with rousseau and kant (who, after all, wrote 'critique of pure reason') -- against voltaire, and it has gained in momentum really ever since.
for many decades, that reaction enhanced life in the west. but, by lenin and world war one, that had all changed. and since ww1 -- the event that really began the terminal decline of the west, imo -- the level of ironic and futile absurdity has advanced exponentially.
|12.21.04 @ 10:27PM|#
"but this is not what modern christian-hero-cultists mean, of course. they mean virulent and intolerant -- rather the philosophical opposite of locke, whose influence and moderation was so paramount to them and all english parliamentarians following the english civil war."
"believing they meant their republic to be either a exclusively christian nation or a secular nation misunderstands profoundly the climate of their times -- or, indeed, the nature of christianity post-reformation. they meant it to be a tolerant society, first and foremost."
"of course, that modern cultists ignore the fractionation of christianity after calvin is part and parcel to the ignorance of history that is so common to our increasingly illiterate times. in a society fleeing the past, how can they be expected to learn and understand it? so they end up with a half-assed compromise -- christian nameplate and (unread) book, augustinian mysticism but nietzschean mechanism."
Gaius, you drive me crazy with your talk about intolerant Christianity and the apparent death of true Christianity.
I share G. Marius' apparent concern that Christianity's contributions to Western and American culture are being undermined by an assortment of cultural authoritarians both Christian and non-Christian.
...However, as I commented above, many true Christians refuse to speak of themselves, and no one can speak for people who won't speak of themselves. If one assumes that the latter is true then it follows that no one can measure the state of Christianity by what supposed Christians say in public.
Agnostic intellectuals concerned about the state of Christianity should note that so long as ministers enjoin parents to treat others as they would wish to be treated and so long as parents enjoin their children to read the Bible for themselves and follow the wisdom in the Sermon on the Mount, true Christianity is safe and secure. To true Christians, please note, this is all beside the point; indeed, to them, the tolerance at the heart of true Christianity can't die anymore than the resurrected Christ could be dead in his tomb.
G. Marius is obviously a very learned man, much more so than I, and his concerns appear to be stewed in an intellectual sauce which is very different from the concerns of true believers. True believers often get down on their knees to humiliate themselves before the creator of the universe and ask for direction and forgiveness. They ask that God will improve, nay, perfect their character, so that they will no longer be judgmental or covet or sin. When they pray that God's will will be done on earth, they're not claiming a heavenly mandate to rule America by way of the Republican Party; they're praying that they will be used by God to help people who are in need. Many of them, anonymously, give more than ten percent of their incomes to that end, and then they give additional offerings too. Their concerns are neither cultural nor political; they believe in God.
Once again, the meaning of God's sacrifice for every individual and his message proclaiming the inherent value of every human being is not in danger of being forgotten by true Christians. How can any true Christian, knowing that God sacrificed himself for everyone, be intolerant of anyone for whom God sacrificed himself?
...and there are millions and millions of Christians who believe that, right here in America. They're in all sorts of denominations.
This is all to say that I think Gaius is mourning for a patient that is not yet dead. Before signing true Christianity's death certificate, I suggest he try attending a service or two to see the state of Christianity for himself. Go to an Adventist, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Methodist and, indeed, even a Baptist church service. I suspect that most of the people he meets and speaks with will be no more interested in talking about politics in church than most of the people he meets and speaks with in his local watering hole are interested in talking about the Sermon on the Mount.
...Volunteer to help a church run program help someone in need; work with them for a day, and tell me you are still concerned about true Christianity's vibrancy.
If you look for them, indeed, if you look at most any Christian group that actively seeks publicity, you will find those who think that domestic politics should be a function of Leviticus or that foreign policy should be a function of some interpretation of the Book of Revelation. I believe that such people are not typical of Christians or the state of Christianity. Most of the Protestant Christians I know (I don't know many Catholics) believe that all politics are doomed to fail, and that the creator of the universe will, someday, come to liberate us from our leaders.
...regardless of creed, color or national origin, they share a belief that we will one day live in a world of people who choose tolerance and freedom.
gaius marius|12.22.04 @ 9:47AM|#
i sincerely hope so, mr schultz.
fwiw, i do make it to the catholic churches of my parents every now and again, even though i am no longer orthodox -- and i see some of these people. i could not doubt the existence of benevolent, tolerant christian souls.
what i fear, then, is the place they have been relegated to in this, our society -- and what that says about our society, in light of kant, byron, carlyle and nietzsche.
from bertrand russell, in discussing ethics after locke: