Operation Nativity—Who Cares?

Ronald Bailey | November 2, 2005

As an oppressed religious minority in the United States, some Christians evidently feel the need to assert themselves. Thus Operation Nativity has been launched which urges lots of Christians to put nativity scenes on their own private property. The more the merrier.

However, the press release goes on to spoil the spirit of the holiday by noting: "Operation Nativity is not a call to abandon the fight to have access to the public square for the purpose of celebrating the historic reason for the season." Actually, nativity scenes are often legal in public squares now. But never mind.

More interestingly, the press release points out: "Since 1870 Christmas has been a federally endorsed holiday by law." Hmmm. Since it's a federal holiday anyway, why not consider making Christmas a three day weekend holiday like President's Day or Labor Day? That way we might avoid a future a nasty lawsuit over the establishment clause. That would be a win/win for believers and nonbelievers.

Comments

|11.2.05 @ 4:48PM|#

Hey Bailey,

The DNA helix on the cover of your book is left-handed, when real DNA is right-handed. Are you saying that's how far Genetic engineering will go or are you just an idiot too lazy to look up a fact as basic as that?

|11.2.05 @ 4:48PM|#

"That'll show 'em!" is an unworthy thought for someone arranging a nativity scene.

|11.2.05 @ 4:49PM|#

Watch yourselves, my oppressed Christian conmpatriots. We atheists control the White House and both houses of Congress in addition to almost every other American institution, and we are coming to get you!

|11.2.05 @ 5:01PM|#

I love Christmas, I love nativity scenes, and I can't stand it when some people have to make Christmas an "in your face" thing. Just chill out and have some fun, for Christ's sake (literally).

|11.2.05 @ 5:09PM|#

thoreau,

You do realize that Christians are commanded to be "in your face," right?

|11.2.05 @ 5:13PM|#

Jennifer-

As a member of an oppressed minority, is there anything I could do to persuade you and your fellow atheists to show me mercy? Surely you realize that not all of us are as obnoxious as these jerks?

Is there any way that you could at least give me the privilege of being the last one into the ovens?

|11.2.05 @ 5:15PM|#

Speaking as atheist and secularist, I'd like to say that I really don't have a problem with religous displays on public land. Just as long as you provide the display, not expect the taxpayers to spend a dime for its upkeep, and not complain when someone else put up a display promoting their contradictory beliefs.

(Case in point: A couple of years ago, the Freedom From Religion foundation put up a holiday display promoting atheism in Madison that sent the local conservatives--especially the ones on radio squawk shows--into a fit.)

In fact, if you want to put up a nativity scene, go right ahead... as soon as you pay $20/week usage fee.

|11.2.05 @ 5:18PM|#

edit: "...a problem with religious...".

I'm at work now and I don't have a comfort of my Google task bar to spell check for me.

|11.2.05 @ 5:29PM|#

Also, there needs to be a sign right next to your scene that implicity states that this public display by no means represents the official beliefs of the municipality or its residents and that its presense does not constitute an endorsement of that belief.

|11.2.05 @ 5:32PM|#

Fox gabber John Gibson has just put out a book called (I kid you not) The War Against Christmas. The premise: people who celebrate Christmas (and want us to help foot the bill for "public" Christmas displays whether we want to or not) are now a PERSECUTED MINORITY. Hoo boy...

Harlan Ellison said it best: "Fuck Christmas."...

|11.2.05 @ 5:41PM|#

Jim Wlash,

This all about Christians no longer feeling as if they dominate the culture.

|11.2.05 @ 5:41PM|#

Somebody should start an organization that promotes Festivus poles on public property.

Actually, that might be Constitutional: The 1st amendment protects our right to petition for a redress of grievances, and Festivus is all about airing grievances.

Well, that and the feats of strength.

Timothy|11.2.05 @ 5:47PM|#

Even when I was a believer, which is not that many years ago, it seemed totally silly to me not to realize the history of modern Christmas. 1) It was strategically placed by the Catholic church in an effort to supercede traditional pagan solstice celebrations, 2) Romans wouldn't have done a census in winter and 3) There's little to no evidence about the actual birthday of The Jesus (as he is known, in accordance with Prophecy).

There's also the small fact that Easter is much more theologically important, but I guess that gets forgotten when there's a cheap excuse to send a few Shoebox cards to relatives you never see and don't particularly like. Honestly, I don't see where these folks get off making a big hairy deal out of an arbitrarily picked date. Celebrate in private, I seem to recall something about praying in private from that there bible, why not take Christmas the same direction?

Me, well, as a purely secular celebrant, I'm using it as an excuse to beg my parents to buy me a Dyson vacuum*.

*Yes this proves that I am both finally an adult AND extremely boring.

|11.2.05 @ 5:52PM|#

Religious displays on public property... I used to think this was an unsolvable conflict, because no matter what, someone's rights would be violated. Theoretically, we all own "public" (government) property, a legal fiction that is at the root of the problem. Theoretically, we each have a right to dispose of "our property" as we wish, including putting up any religious displays we want, or none at all. But as a practical matter, everyone's wishes cannot be accommodated. An arbitrary decision must be made that denies someone's "property" rights.

Unsolvable? So I thought -- but I underestimated the power of my own genius! Because last May, in a thread that was already dying, I came up with the solution. I repost it here, with certain typos (missing words, missing thoughts) corrected:
-------------------------------------
Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!

Hey, I thought of a possible way out of the "use of public property for displays that do not reflect the religious views of all constituents" dilemma. It might even be brilliant. Although it may not pass the libertarian purity test.

Want to put up a religious display at the state courthouse? Or the lawn of your local city hall? Or the National Mall in Washington, DC?

Simply have the appropriate jurisdiction hold a lottery. Tickets are $1. Anyone can buy as many as they want. The prize: You can put up any "religious" display you want for one week. (We'll hold a lottery for each of the 52 weeks in a year, one week at a time, maybe one month in advance.) Winners will be chosen at random.

Organized churches can pool their funds and/or contributions from members to buy multiple tickets and improve their changes of winnning.

You would need to establish certain rules, similar to the FCC broadcast rules, but keep them simple and apply them to all comers. For example, say the display cannot include "the seven dirty words" or depictions of blood, excrement, full nudity, torture, etc. Note that this would prevent displays of the typical Catholic crucifex (blood, torture) but not a manger or Easter tomb scene.

Advantages:

- It brings in revenue! Lottery proceeds can help provide funds for various government expenditures, like maybe Social Security. Or some welfare/charity program that should be carried out by private religious groups anyway.

- It's voluntarist! You don't have to buy a lottery ticket if you don't want to! It's better than taxes! And nobody can complain about "tax money being used to promote religion," either. It's the other way around -- religious contributions are used to support public facilities, thereby reducing (or eliminating) the taxpayer's burden! But because it's voluntary, you're not taxing churches, either.

- It's democratic! Chances are, by odds and sheer numbers, most of the time the lotteries will be won by persons or churches representing the most popular religious views of the country. More often than not, "the Christian majority" will get to put up what they want.

- It still gives minorities a shot! Even minority religious views like Zoroastrianists, evangelical atheists, Wiccans, Buddhists, and the Very Special Trinitarian Church of Me, Myself & I will have a non-zero chance of winning and getting their way. That's more than you can say for minority parties in ordinary democratic elections!

Of course, if the Church of Satan or a secular humanist club or whatever wins once in a while, it will piss off some people, but you can't say it wasn't fair. And statistically, this shouldn't happen very often. Moreover, the "damage" will be limited to one week. Surely this can be tolerated as the price you pay for religious freedom. If nothing else, the weekly rotation and people's limited attention spans mean any specific controverial displays will come and go quickly, instead of being a perennial lightning rod like the situation now.

|11.2.05 @ 5:59PM|#

The DNA helix on the cover of your book is left-handed, when real DNA is right-handed. Are you saying that's how far Genetic engineering will go or are you just an idiot too lazy to look up a fact as basic as that?
Perhaps Mr. Bailey isn't a graphic designer, and most likely didn't design the cover of his book?

You know, like practically every other author in the industry?

|11.2.05 @ 6:07PM|#

Jennifer- As a member of an oppressed minority, is there anything I could do to persuade you and your fellow atheists to show me mercy? . . . .Is there any way that you could at least give me the privilege of being the last one into the ovens?

I like you, Thoreau. I really do. And if it were just you I'd say sure, let the Christian live in peace and do his little Christian-y things, no skin off my nose. But if I refrain from repressing you then I'll have to refrain from repressing other Christians, too, and if I do that then it's within the realm of possibility that America might change--from a country where Christians are a despised minority to a country where y'all are the actual majority of the American population, and then we'll have Christian schoolteachers and Christian policemen and Christian Congresspeople and even--I'm not trying to be alarmist here, I'm just facing facts--a Christian president. Obviously I can't allow this crazy science-fiction scenario to come to pass, not even for your sake, as much as I do genuinely like you. I really do. Some of my best friends are Christians. You're all so cute when you're little.

You will be glad to know, however, that instead of ovens we'll be putting y'all into concentration camps. But we won't be calling them "camps," but "spiritual retreats." These "retreats" will be by a lake or in the woods or some other place with lots of bugs. And at night the inmates will be forced to build campfires, thus attracting every bug in a ten-mile radius, and they'll be given acoustic guitars and (as their bodies are turned into bug buffets) forced to sing "Kum By Yah" over and over and over again until their minds utterly snap. And if that doesn't do them in then starvation will, because they'll be given nothing to eat but scorched S'mores.

I'm afraid, Thoreau, that I can't exempt you from your spot in this "retreat," but if you are very, very nice to me I'll let you have some bug spray.

|11.2.05 @ 6:44PM|#

Stevo-

What about those sects of various faiths that prohibit gambling?

|11.2.05 @ 7:05PM|#

I kick myself for having forgotten to weave the phrase "final solution" into that last post of mine.

I'll take my anger out on the campers at the retreat.

|11.2.05 @ 7:23PM|#

Hey, Bailey,

I was pissed off when all these immigrants from the People's Republic of California decided to change Nevada Day from October 31 to the last Friday in October, and I'll be pissed off if Christmas is also changed. Thanks a lot for the suggestion.

:-) :-) :-)

|11.2.05 @ 7:23PM|#

The "reason for the season?" Like Sol Invictus and all that?

The Wine Commonsewer|11.2.05 @ 7:24PM|#

Actually, since Christmas is apparently not the reason for the season, I want my fargin mail delivered on December 25, I want the courts open and, I want the DMV open, and I don't want to get no answering machine message telling me the offices are closed for the holidays when I call the ACLU neither.

|11.2.05 @ 8:07PM|#

Stevo- What about those sects of various faiths that prohibit gambling?

Darn you.

No, wait, I think the solution is still all cool. There are also sects that prohibit graven religious images, or overtly celebrating religious holidays, or any interaction with the government at all, I believe. My system wouldn't discriminate against those. But it wouldn't compel anyone to participate, either. If an organization's own internal rules forbid it from participating, there's nothing the law can do about that.

|11.2.05 @ 8:09PM|#

TWC,

The "reason" for Christmas, like all other federal holidays, is that pretending to do your job is every bit as hard as it looks, and even the few, the proud who can call themselves federal employees need a holiday once in a while where they can stop pretending to do their jobs and just actually not do their jobs.

General,

Christmas cannot be made a 3 day weekend because it would then be impossible to celebrate it each year on the precise calendar date of the baby Jesus' birth. Har har.

|11.2.05 @ 8:38PM|#

If changing the date of Christmas seems unsettling, consider that even the Gospels contradict one another on the season of birth, and none provide a concrete date. Dec. 25 was chosen because it coincided with the Roman festival of Saturnalia.

Also, a handful of ultra-fundamentalists Christian denominations consider Christmas a pagan holiday not sanctioned by the bible, and refuse to celebrate it.

|11.2.05 @ 10:23PM|#

The vast majority of the US population regards December 25 as a day of celebration. Even most atheists seem to enjoy Christmas as a secular holiday. So it only makes sense to close government offices on December 25. If you don't, everybody will just schedule their vacation time for that day anyway, and those who aren't allowed to schedule vacation time for that day (to avoid understaffing) will simply call in "sick."

So it just makes sense to close government offices that day.

Seen from another angle, the vast majority of the private sector closes up shop on that day. Why should the public sector be any different?

Finally, if you force the bureaucrats to work that day, they might just do something spiteful like target Santa's sleigh with surface-to-air missiles. And that wouldn't be any good.

|11.2.05 @ 10:23PM|#

Deus,

I was kidding. Hence the "har har."

Jason Sonenshein|11.2.05 @ 10:29PM|#

Speaking as atheist and secularist, I'd like to say that I really don't have a problem with religious displays on public land. Just as long as you provide the display, not expect the taxpayers to spend a dime for its upkeep, and not complain when someone else put up a display promoting their contradictory beliefs.

Amen, brother!

Crusader #1|11.3.05 @ 12:54AM|#

I think you Infidels had better get on over to the official Operation Nativity site. You just might learn something about Jesus, anal sex, and yourself.

|11.3.05 @ 2:26AM|#

I like the idea (though I share the same disappointment at the spoiler as Mr. Bailey) of the Nativity project. I do also like Stevo's suggestion. But I've always maintained that not showing religious displays on public property is simply not a big burden. What percentage of most communities is public property? What percentage is private? I would venture that most communities are made up of probably 90% private property, where people are free to display what they wish. Why get bloody over the other 10%? For the Fundies, why is 80% of 90% not enough for their taste?

|11.3.05 @ 4:18AM|#

There's little to no evidence about the actual birthday of The Jesus

Actually, if the whole shepherd thing is really true, then Jesus was probably born around September or (less likely) March or April. The shepherds were apparently keeping watch, and the only time of the year that shepherds do this are when the ewes are about to give birth, as they might have been needed to assist at a particularly hard birth. They definately wouldn't have been out in December, as A) sheep do not join naturally in the fall and B)only an idiot would induce breeding when winter was coming. Of course, one must remember that any text that claims to give information about Jesus' life prior to when he would have been ministering it up, so to speak, is crap. So, it's all purely academic.

As to the issue at hand, I like Stevo's idea. About time we got some tax money out of those churches.

|11.3.05 @ 7:56AM|#

Harlan Ellison said it best: "Fuck Christmas."...

I can't believe Harlan Ellison said that. Either provide a link to support your contention or stop slandering the guy.

A dude I know told me that he went to a Harlan Ellison book signing and said that he acted like a total asshole. That can't be right. Maybe Harlan was just having a really bad day.

|11.3.05 @ 8:37AM|#

A dude I know told me that he went to a Harlan Ellison book signing and said that he acted like a total asshole.

I can't say that sounds out of character for the few Harlan Ellison anecdotes I've heard.

gaius marius|11.3.05 @ 9:22AM|#

the purpose of celebrating the historic reason for the season

then i think we're going to have to have some sort of icon of the saturnalia in the public square, aren't we? perhaps a statuette of sol invictus?

|11.3.05 @ 9:30AM|#

Why get bloody over the other 10%? For the Fundies, why is 80% of 90% not enough for their taste?

Because, according to their ideology, church and state should be one in the same. To them, putting a Nativity or other publicly-funded espousals of religion in front of town hall makes it perfectly clear that this is THEIR town, that THEIR religion is the only that will be truly tolerated, and everyone else had better conform or get out. However, when that pesky First Amendment thing gets in their, they scream, yell and below because they think you are undermining the very foundations of public order. To them, you might as well legalize murder, rape, and robbery for without a government that pays homage to the alleged source of all law, you might as well have no law at all. At least, that's what they tell the congregation at the meeting house.

Of course, what it really does is undermine their power Humans are a selfish, tribal species that will not stand to lose their status to those who are somehow different. Hak is right. What this all boils down to is that the religious fear that they will no longer get to call the cultural shots in this civilization, and they don't like that. Since Christianity is a faith with an engrained persecution complex and playing the victim card seems to work in this media-driven society, they'll claim they're just trying to practice their faith in the face of the heartless atheists who want to "repress" it for their own nefarious purposes.

It also works to keep the collection plate full.

|11.3.05 @ 9:53AM|#

Good answer, Akira.

People like this are acting like dogs, raising their leg on a tree to mark it as their tree. They need to put their decorations on public property, and ideally to have the government itself sponsor that, as a way of demonstrated their ownership of the government.

I may not be much of a Christian, but I'm enough of one to be offended when I see something that's supposed to be holy treated like so much dog urine.

|11.3.05 @ 9:54AM|#

Edit: However, when that pesky First Amendment thing gets in their way, they scream, yell and bellow because they think keeping religion and government seperated undermines the very foundations of public order.

and...

Of course, what it really does is undermine their power.

|11.3.05 @ 10:29AM|#

Shem:

As a former Virginia farm boy, we always arranged to have our lambs born in the winter. Why? First, because we had barns (unlike lst century shepherds) where we could watch over our flocks more easily. Secondly, by having lambs born in the winter, we avoided a number a insect borne diseases and parasites.

Lojack: Just read the book and see how lazy you think I am. And yes, mediageek is right--I didn't design the cover and in fact had to throw a major fit in order to get the publisher to change from the really ugly one they first designed.

Finally, Liberation Biology makes a wonderful Christmas stocking stuffer, as well as a superb wedding, birthday, anniversary, bar or bat mitzvah gift. You can't have too many copies!

|11.3.05 @ 10:55AM|#

...and you tried to save the lamb, and you ran away as fast as you could, all the way to the Reason Institute. Didn't you, Clarice?

|11.3.05 @ 11:04AM|#

Are the lambs still screaming, Ronald?

|11.3.05 @ 11:14AM|#

What percentage of most communities is public property? What percentage is private?

It all depends on whether or not the private land would generate more tax revenue as is, or as a minimall.

fyodor|11.3.05 @ 11:23AM|#

Since Christianity is a faith with an engrained persecution complex

lol, Akira!! But take it a step further, it's an engrained Martyr complex!! :-)

playing the victim card seems to work in this media-driven society

I don't know if it's any different in this society or an account of the media, but it can't be stressed enough how commonly the playing-the-victim card is played and how all sides of the political spectrum shamelessly do it.

Hail Nietzsche!!

VIking Moose|11.3.05 @ 11:26AM|#

TWC: "fargin" = awesome johnny dangerously reference!

fundies and less devout christians want a piece of the culture of victimhood, too. why should they be different.

Akira: spot on, as usual. did you make it to Bad Religion at the Metro yesterday? (didn't)

Stevo: why are you taking money from the clothmen - they, too, need the creature comforts, and lots of 'em. Halleluja!

i'd like to make austin texas the fundie hq for the month. there seem to be passionately devout believers there. and judgemental to boot. and intellectual. boo jah!

|11.3.05 @ 11:51AM|#

I don't mind tribalism per se. Individuals are naturally going to gravitate toward and identify with those with similar beliefs and interests. That can, and often does, have a great deal of benefit be it economic, societal, or psychological. HOWEVER, what I object to is the needless, pointless, and oft times bloody bickering between tribes and the desire for one group to dominate another.

I've often thought that politics is all about one group attempting to get as much benefit from government(be it money, power, privilage, etc.) at the expense of another group or groups, particularly those groups they hate. Conservatives take great glee out of political defeat of liberals and their issues, and vice versa. Why? Because the opposing tribe poses a threat (real or imagined) to the other and it always feels good to be the winner, especially when the victory is viewed as a matter of life and death.

In the end, there's likely enough room on this planet for everyone to have the system or society they want, so why do you have to force everyone else to conform to one tribal vision? Put the ego tripping and paranoia aside and mind your own business for a change, humanity.

|11.3.05 @ 11:59AM|#

fundies and less devout christians want a piece of the culture of victimhood, too.

"Pity not the martyr, for he enjoys his work."

forced to sing "Kum By Yah" over and over

A la Addams Family Values?

|11.3.05 @ 12:12PM|#

"Pity not the martyr, for he enjoys his work."

Partner that with the Crusades, the Inquestition, witch hunts, etc. and you can truly call Christianity a religious form of S&M.

gaius marius|11.3.05 @ 12:22PM|#

What this all boils down to is that the religious fear that they will no longer get to call the cultural shots in this civilization

i think, if that were the problem, mr mackenzie, you'd have to go back a few centuries. that fear played out in the couterreformation.

what we're seeing now isn't people who are afraid of not calling the shots -- it's people who are afraid that no one is calling shots, succumbing to salesmen-preachers who convince the frightened many that they should be. these things are personality-cults, and little more.

Since Christianity is a faith with an engrained persecution complex

but it shouldn't be one which seeks to strike out against persecution on earth, of course, as persecution is the path to redemption in the christian faith.

But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.

does that sounds like any postmodern cultist we're discussing?

|11.3.05 @ 12:27PM|#

I think you're wrong, gaius. I think the belief in their right to hold power, to have their people recognized as the rightful holders of power, goes beyond infatuation with a self-styled leader, and goes to the heart of the Christianist - note merely Christian, mind you - wouldview.

|11.3.05 @ 12:38PM|#

Ron-Nowadays, it's not really big a deal, I'll agree, especially with modern methods of preserving enough food throughout the year. But there's no way a shepherd in the first century would have set out to birth sheep in the middle of December.

gaius marius|11.3.05 @ 12:46PM|#

belief in their right to hold power

for some, certainly, mr joe. but i know some of these people. they aren't monstrous totalitarians; they're insecure, confused and scared (in many cases rightfully, imo). they don't want power -- they want peace. and they, living as they do in a post-christian world that provides plenty of managerial, technical and economic advice but almost no real spiritual or historical guidance, have lost any sense of what it means to be christian and have taken to following people with ideas that are, if anything, somewhere between machiavellians and nietzschean -- and decidedly monstrous and totalitarian.

|11.3.05 @ 1:07PM|#

they don't want power -- they want peace.

gaius, if that were so, then we wouldn't be having this Nativity debate--or debates on Evolution Vs. Creationsism, or gay marriage, or abortion--would we? If that were so, the Christian would be able to turn the other cheek and quietly live their life as their Messiah taught while the rest of us sinners and blasphemers would face an eternity in Hell. We wouldn't have to worry about the Christian Right (or, to be fair, Christian Left) trying to redeem the world via the legislative process.

Besides, life is so much more peaceful when everyone agrees, or is made to agree, with you.

gaius marius|11.3.05 @ 1:18PM|#

if that were so, then we wouldn't be having this Nativity debate--or debates on Evolution Vs. Creationsism, or gay marriage, or abortion--would we?

i didn't say they were cool rational monads, mr mackenzie -- i said they were scared. and scared people sometimes follow bad leaders.

We wouldn't have to worry about the Christian Right (or, to be fair, Christian Left) trying to redeem the world via the legislative process.

what we have to worry about, i would say, mr mackenzie, is not the 98% who follow but the 2% who lead this madness. expose them for what they are -- which is decidedly not christian -- in a way that even children can understand, and you would do much to defuse the personality-cult movement.

this is a big problem, it seems to me, in attacking the issue. few on the our side accept that the arguments made on behalf of these people are not the views of the mass of the people themselves. it was a distinction that this society was once able to make in cutting a nazi head off of a german social body. is it still capable of making it? are we still capable in the thrall of rousseauian plebiscitarianism of acknowledging that people are, in the end, often merely sheep?