Banning Christmas - Ever Meet a Happy Atheist?

The Washington Dispatch ^ | 12/5/03 | Steve Yuhas

[narses]

From The Washington Dispatch

Opinion
Banning Christmas - Ever Meet a Happy Atheist?
Exclusive commentary by Steve Yuhas



Dec 5, 2003

The day after Thanksgiving ushers in the most joyous, and busiest, time of the year. The Christmas holiday season finds most Americans shopping for gifts for their loved ones (and a few for themselves) and making preparations for office parties, school plays and concerts. Small towns across the nation bring out carefully stored holiday decorations that date from World War II and leagues of volunteers and Boy Scouts carefully put them up to bring joy to the town and to the people who pass through. Cool weather blankets most of the country and even the most tepid of Christmas celebrator secretly yearns for at least a dusting of snow on Christmas Eve. Happiness seems to be everywhere and kindness is almost as easy to transfer as a late autumn cold.

Unless, that is, you belong to a band of anti-Christmas scrooges known as the ACLU or American United for the Separation of Church and State (“Americans United”).

For the last two decades these gangs of unhappy and unfulfilled Americans have gone town by town, school by school hoping to cleanse Christmas and every reference to the real reason we celebrate it from our public lexicon. Knowing that their mission to purge Christmas, God, Christ, and other religious symbols from the public square could not be accomplished through debate and discourse in a nation where some 94% of the people believe in God and the majority are Christian they turned to the all too willing courts to impose their atheist religion.

The ACLU and Americans United take to the airwaves in early November to let America know that they don’t have a personal stake in whether or not Christmas displays, carols, and cookies are put on in public schools or the public square, but their phones are ringing off the hook by people who are offended by such things. I’m Jewish and don’t celebrate Christmas, but have yet to be offended by a Christmas tree or Oh Come All Ye Faithful being played in city hall. Most of us know people who are not Christian – ask yourself how many of them have ever said they were offended by any of these things? The probable answer is none.

People have to ask how it is that so few people can effect change for so many? Ever notice that when it comes to banning Christmas and God from the public square that the news networks can only come up with a few people to support that position and put them on every channel. You’d think there would be people lining up to get on Fox News to debate the fact that they are offended by Christmas carols and nativity scenes, but it is just the same people saying the same things over and over and over again. It almost seems that there are four people who want Christmas banned and they are accomplishing it in the most amazing ways.

Many municipalities have outlawed the presence of a baby Jesus in a manger outside city hall. Christmas is a federal holiday and you’d be hard pressed to find anyone in any government office outside of police and fire departments on duty that day, but if the birth of Jesus is so offensive why not just ban the holiday all together? Not even the ACLU is saying that Christmas cannot be a holiday, but Americans are celebrating the birth of Christ – not the birth of some insignificant figure in history. To say that shutting down the government is perfectly acceptable while a depiction of the historical event that is the holiday itself is inconsistent and intellectually dishonest. The nativity scene is as much a part of Christmas, historically and religiously, as the flag is a part and symbol of the 4th of July.

Banning Christmas trees has long been a favorite debate of mine to follow. There is absolutely nothing religious about a tree decorated with lights and ornaments – there is no reference to it in the New Testament and certainly nobody can dispute that the Christmas tree is a relatively new invention. Nevertheless, some towns have decided to ban them and some have come so close to it that the trees have become multicultural displays that seek inclusion at the cost of beauty.

There is something inherently beautiful about a simple tree decorated with lights and ornaments created by the local grade school. It used to be that people would gather in the town center to wait for the mayor to throw the switch and a small party would follow with the local church choir singing carols to welcome in the season. Now cities decorate the “holiday tree” with Menorahs so as not to offend Jews and crescents to not offend Muslims – it is only a matter of time before little Buddha ornaments are created so that people who have no stake in Christmas whatsoever are not offended. Christmas trees are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to banning Christmas symbols, but it still begs the question: why?

What is it about Christmas that makes the ACLU and Americans United so unhappy? Surely it is not their stated objection that they believe that municipal or government recognition of the Christmas holiday is somehow an establishment of religion. That argument rings hollow on so many levels: how is putting up a tree or allowing a choir from a church in town to sing a Christmas song that inevitably contains reference to the reason the holiday exists to begin with establishes a church? If their position were credible there would be at least one person they could trot out to Fox News to say that they converted to Christianity because they saw a Christmas tree at city hall. Sounds absurd, but so is their argument.

It must be that there is and always will be a group of people in the United States who are so fervently against religion that they will find offense in Santa Clause and children putting on a Christmas play in order to purge it from our public square. Atheists and other anti-religious zealots choose Christmas as their most hated holiday because it is the one that most Americans identify with. They figure that if they can get mayors and town councils to ban trees, block Santa, and rid the world of Silent Night, Holy Night, in the name of tolerance that their other anti-religious antics will be easily attained using the same tactics.

It is time that people rise up and tell these religiously anti-religious fanatics that nobody has yet to be turned Christian by gazing upon a Christmas tree and given the examples that the left has provided for role models for children – Santa Clause is a pretty good alternative. If we don’t stop them now it is only a matter of time before they find a judge to find eggnog unconstitutional. Let's help these always unhappy people find happiness in a Christmas tree and choir like the rest of us do.

---

Steve Yuhas' columns appear weekly on various other websites. He has appeared on national radio and television including on such notable shows as Larry King Live, Fox News Channel, the CBS Early Show, and countless other national and local television and radio programs bringing common sense and a different view to issues of the day.

© 2002 The Washington Dispatch. All Rights Reserved.

[narses]

Yep, indeed I have.

[Glenn]

Once again, we agnostics are hung out to dry. Woe is me!

[Steel Wolf]

"Ever Meet a Happy Atheist?"

I think he expanded on this point a bit, talking about how atheists are generally unfulfilled people. It's a bit more than that, but that's the idea. Atheists are not fulfilled people.

Like the old saying goes, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Not everyone is a zealot, but everyone that's ever been exposed to the conflicts of real life winds up believing in something. Eventually, some atheists will settle into causes that they use in place of spiritual belief. For instance, the ACLU or science. Others just don't think about it.

Well rounded atheists are like famous moderate leaders in history. They just don't exist. Every atheist I have ever known, regardless of temperment, seems to lack some element of the human dynamic. I suspect this is the authors point.

[Kay Soze]

ever see an athiest home for the elderly?

[jwalburg]

Sometimes a 50-cent word is just what it takes!

[elfman2]

Indeed. LOL!

[elfman2]

” Atheists are not fulfilled people.”

I’ve found that unsupportable attacks out of left field like that usually say more about the accuser than the accused. Simply because one’s stand is not based in theology", does not mean that he “stands for nothing”.

[elfman2]

”ever see an athiest home for the elderly?”

Like for profit? Yes, my mother’s in one right now.

[Kay Soze]

Looks like a nice place.

I did notice this "saying" as theri philosphy:

"Following the tradition of the Golden Rule “Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You”

The Golden Rule or the ethic of reciprocity is found in the scriptures of nearly every religion.

[jennyp]

Like the old saying goes, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Translation: If you don't believe that the real world is but a pawn in a battle between competing supernatural personalities who only communicate to us via mental telepathy, then you'll be bereft of moral convictions.

Makes sense to me!

Not everyone is a zealot, but everyone that's ever been exposed to the conflicts of real life winds up believing in something. Eventually, some atheists will settle into causes that they use in place of spiritual belief. For instance, the ACLU or science. Others just don't think about it.

Now that's an interesting claim: Science itself is a "spiritual belief". It would seem to me that the scientific process is the very antithesis of a spiritual belief. Science is a method of investigating the world that's designed to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible, thus leading as close to truly objective knowledge of the world as possible.

If that qualifies as a "spiritual belief" to you, then how can the term "spiritual belief" have any meaning at all?

I think you're confusing yourself because you assume that the only way we can come up with something to care about is through belief in supernatural people. But rest assured, there are many people and causes right here in the real world that are quite important enough to compel us to build & uphold secure moral principles.

[elfman2]

”The Golden Rule or the ethic of reciprocity is found in the scriptures of nearly every religion. ”

I didn’t notice that. I’m no historian, but I suspect that it preceded nearly every religion. And being that living in a society with principles is in man’s rational self-interest, ethics such as this are part of Objecitivism.

[Steel Wolf]

I’ve found that unsupportable attacks out of left field like that usually say more about the accuser than the accused. Simply because one’s stand is not based in theology", does not mean that he “stands for nothing”.

All I was making was a general observation that people in modern societies that don't believe in a higher power of some form tend not to believe in anything. Animists, Wiccans and polytheists are not atheists, even some environmentalists ascribe the planet itself a form of higher power. Even agnostics admit that they simply don't know.

Atheists, real atheists, are, in my limited experience, neither happy nor fulfilled people.

Without theology or spirituality, you're basically left with some human or scientifically oriented philosophy to fill the void. It could be communism, or technology, or UFOs. It could be avoidance of the question.

Either way, it's not my business. People are free to believe in or not believe in whatever they like, and that suits me just fine. In fact, I think intellectual freedom is a great strength. Everyone chooses their own path, I'm just pointing out that some paths are happier and more fulfilling to lead than others.

[Steel Wolf]

if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Translation: If you don't believe that the real world is but a pawn in a battle between competing supernatural personalities who only communicate to us via mental telepathy, then you'll be bereft of moral convictions.

That would be a very narrow way of putting it. To be more general, and more precise, I'd say that if you don't believe in a benevolent higher power of some form, you will likely fall for a darker or more mechanical world view. This world view will likely result in your stay on Earth being less fulfilling and happy than it could have been.

People who have never heard of the Bible or the Koran can be atheists. I'm sure there are some very happy Buddhists and animists out there.

As far as science being a religion, I apologize for the shorthand reference. Yes, you are right in that moral behavior can be scientifically proven to benefit humanity. That will never sell more than a fraction of the human race on the importance of morality.

My point is that faith in science may be enough of a guiding light for someone with no spiritual faith. We can pretend that if we build faster machines, larger cities, and invent more flavors of ice cream then we'll someday be happy. Many scientists take their causes to heart, and are fulfilled by them. But science is not an end unto itself. It simply allows us to understand and manipulate the world around us.

This can be a noble endeavor. It sure beats sitting in caves waiting for it to get warm again. I just don't think that people who put their faith in science alone, that is people who believe in nothing besides what can be proven, are getting the full experience that life has to offer.

[stands2reason]

Ever meet someone who confuses the headline writer with the writer of the piece?

[jennyp]

Thank you for the clarification - that sounds more reasonable to me. Let me just say, then, that if your experience with atheists is limited to the vocal, usually leftist, media hogs who are obsessed with rubbing out religious symbolism, then I can understand how you'd think we're all miserable! :-)

To me, the only disadvantage to being an atheist is we don't get to believe that we'll live forever. OTOH, that does mean that this life is the only life we get, and so the principles that guide our actions are important in themselves because of the consequences to ourselves & others.

[DannyTN]

"Good points made in the article about Christmas trees and such not even being religious in nature. But so what if they were? "

I disagree. The cut Christmas tree was a symbol of Germany's break with paganism. Supposedly Martin Luther brought the first Christmas Tree to England as a symbol of peace and goodwill towards Germany.

[Tribune7]

Dr. Suess wrote a story about these guys.

[Tribune7]

Also, sales personnel are, I am sure, instructed to wish you a "Happy Holiday," to which I reply "And a Merry Christmas to you, too."

I do the same. Most of them seem to appreciate it.

[xm177e2]

Let me get this straight: The Democratic party is entirely secular, hates Christians and Jews, is treasonous, and is in favor of Muslim terrorism?

[JamesA]

Hard to find Christmas cards with, "Merry Christmas" on them. Seems the Politically correct mode is have a Happy Holiday. Ain't that a shame and we let the minority do it. I even looked at the new Coke can..they used to say Merry Christmas now only Holiday 2003. Got my unions trade paper yesterday and it too now avoids the term Christmas and only wishes us Happy Holiday..Pittiful, when will it end.