Christmas, Satire, and Reality
This article appeared a few weeks ago, and it took at least thirty seconds for me to realize that it was satire. Well worth reading, it approached but did not then seem quite to achieve the degree of credibility associated with exceptionally excellent satire. It noted:
“‘Political Correctness’ is where it’s at nowadays,” the governor began as she showed Hugh to his seat. “No more of this Jesus and God stuff,” she said sternly, as she pointed to the crucifix in her wastebasket. “As governor of this state, I must defer to the Founding Persons, who said that there must be a separation of Church and State, and that government may not tolerate religion,” she continued.
“Excuse me, Ma’am,” the reporter interrupted, “but I did not see anywhere in the Constitution that the Founders intended to ban religion per se.”
“Well, that may be,” the governor continued, “but, as governor, I cannot risk the prospect that the one thousandth of one percent of the people of this great state who either do not believe in a Supreme Being, or worship Satan, or paint themselves blue and dance naked around evergreen trees, might in theory be offended if someone displays any religious symbol anywhere in the State, so I have decided to ban all religious expression in my state.”
Surely, I thought, things are not really that way, even in “her state.” Then, I read this article, which explains why a school principal in Oregon had removed a
holiday giving tree at the school after a family complained that the tree was a religious symbol. After removing the tree, Zundel created new guidelines this week for school-sponsored holiday displays — effectively banning holiday trees, Santa Claus figures and Dreidels, which are “legally categorized as secular,” she said.
As best I can determine, the article is not satire; it tells what a government employee actually did and said about it. But wait! There’s more (probably a lot more), but here’s just a small (not statistically valid) sample. In Amelia, Ohio, the annual Christmas parade has been canceled because “one person threatened village mayor Leroy Ellington with legal action.” And:
The following public places in Pittsfield ban Christmas symbols: the post office, schools, City Hall, North Street, and Park Square. In public schools, students and teachers are forbidden to say “Merry Christmas.” They can’t sing Christmas carols. A student wearing red and green, if the clothes are judged to be a Christmas message, can be sent home. Boys dressing like gang members and girls like hookers, meanwhile, are fine.
That’s ridiculous. It’s the (new) American way, I guess. People howl about a burqa ban in France (Islamophobia), but red and green clothing at Christmastime (Christianophobia), well, that’s different. Right.
Maybe I should (but don’t) feel modestly uncomfortable when writing on religious topics, since I have no religion. However, I do have (and have experienced) enough idiocy to recognize idiocy when I see it, and the lengths to which elected and unelected civil “servants” go to do idiotic things distresses me.
Just as I thought I had finished this article, I read “Atheists Deserve Better than the ‘Good without God’ Campaign.” I agree with the author that the atheist advertising campaign is silly. I do wish he had drawn some distinction between agnostics and atheists, however. There is a difference, and it is not merely semantic. As an agnostic, rather than an atheist, I neither know nor claim to know whether there is a god. It would probably be nice to know, and I have thought about it a lot over the past half century or so. I still don’t know, and while perhaps socially beneficial I would consider it highly hypocritical and condescending to proclaim a belief (either way) which I do not have.
Yes Mr Miller, but are you a “Dyslexic” Agnostic?
I appreciate your common sense, it is so rare to find in these polarized times.
It always surprises, and disappoints me, when an avowed libertarian admits to being religious, or even “agnostic”. A true libertarian is devoted to, indeed worships REASON. You cannot be truly rational and yet believe in some Flying Spaghetti Monster ruling the world.
“…I am convinced that the easily offended actually enjoy being offended. It makes them feel extraordinary and therefore superior. It gives them power they would not otherwise have over others. ”
“[Political correctness]… teaches us not only to avoid giving, but to take offense. More of us are easily offended than at any time I can remember.”
These two lines are the heart of the matter.
Regarding Atheist vs. Agnostic.
I submit to you that most so called atheists are, in fact, NOT atheists.
Listen to the “Freedom from Religion” et al crowd some time.
Hear the venom they spout. Hear the disgust and anger in their tone.
These people do not disbelieve the existence of God.
They HATE God.
And I submit, it is IMPOSSIBLE to disbelieve the existence of something which you HATE!
jd
Anyone who didn’t recognize that article as satire, from the first sentence, is a blithering idiot. Badly done and overblown satire.
I find agnosticism to be the only sensible position. Atheism requires that one believes scientists have found answers for all the big questions… and we know how trustworthy their research occasionally is. Meanwhile, the religious would have us believe faerie tales about talking snakes and apples, or any number of other absurd deity stories.
The whole argument about Christmas seems absurd to me anyway. IF Jesus existed, he wasn’t born anywhere near December. The date is far too closely tied to older Sun worshiping rituals (including the lights and the tree etc etc etc). I got no problem with people having a holiday, but the holier than thou “Its about Jesus!” people are just sadly confused.
There is a clear line that the founders put forth… “Congress shall make NO LAW regarding religion”. It’s simple. People should be free to Do As They Will, and the government shouldn’t enforce on belief system over another… they should simply ‘pass no law’. When we look at the circumstances in the world around the time of the Constitution, its clear what Jefferson and others were concerned about. The Catholic Church had run roughshod over most of Europe for Centuries. The Dutch and German Protestant movements caused havoc in their chunk of property. King Henry Tudor turned England into a battleground that left people fighting even into our day. The Tudors killed Catholics and Protestants. Later Kings in England killed Protestants and Puritans. Hugonauts were sold into slavery. France and England fought the Dutch, the Dutch took over England and the King of France lost his head… and all of it because Kings tried to define the beliefs of their people.
THAT is what our Founders were scared of. That is why our government is supposed to be free of religious laws.
all of the other stuff are part and parcel to normal social wars any country might have… Legitimate debates on how our society will interact with religion, but it has nothing to do with the Constitution.
freeomalley;
A true libertarian is devoted to, indeed worships REASON. You cannot be truly rational and yet believe in some Flying Spaghetti Monster ruling the world.
Stories about proteins self-assembling into dinosaurs over long periods of time are about as ‘rational’ as the Spaghetti Monster.
Ratatosk:
“The whole argument about Christmas seems absurd to me anyway. IF Jesus existed, he wasn’t born anywhere near December. The date is far too closely tied to older Sun worshiping rituals (including the lights and the tree etc etc etc”
“IF” Jesus existed? You mean the opinions of EVERY peer-reviewed historian aren’t enough to sway your opinion?
Second, Christmas is more about the Incarnation than Jesus’ birthday.
Third, was does the date have anything to do with it? Do you also complain that Martin Luther King Jr.’s “birthday” always falls on a Monday?
Lastly, you’re aware that “the lights and the tree” didn’t come around until a few hundred years after the holiday started right?
No, the date isn’t closely tied. There are no records of any pagan holidays occurring on December 25 before 221(which was the first record of Christmas taking place of the 25th by Julius Africanus). There were however other feasts that occurred around that time, so I’ll concede you that.
Ratatosk,
The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, provides,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment XIV to the Constitution provides that
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. . . .
It seems to me that recent governmental actions have gone beyond the original intent. However, the Constitution does not exactly provide that “Congress shall make NO LAW regarding religion.” “Regarding” is a petty big but nonetheless somewhat ambiguous word. The Congress has chaplains, and so does the military. Enabling and funding legislation could be construed to fall within the meaning “regarding” religion, but seem far from “establishing” religion.
Don,
What is a “Dyslexic” Agnostic? Remember, God is Dog spelled backwards; I know that dogs exist, and the five dogs we think we own actually seem to own us.
#4 JD:
“I submit to you that most so called atheists are, in fact, NOT atheists.
Listen to the “Freedom from Religion” et al crowd some time.”
As a conservative atheist (one of the few it seems), I agree with you. It is disheartening to realize that too many atheists have replaced the worship of god with that of the state and some mythical notion of utopian equality (doesn’t the tem, “social justice” make you squirm?).
I am quite comfortable around my believing friends as I – and they – realize that ones religious beliefs should be a personal matter and traditions (the pledge, “In god we trust”, benedictions, etc.) are important in and of themselves – outside of their nominal religious content.
I do draw the line at proselytizing however, but the religious kind has happened to me only once so it hardly keeps me up at night. What has happened to me more than a dozen times is political proselytizing of the Lefty persuasion. Talk about a bunch of humorless zealots who believe they have a monopoly on truth! Arrogance mixed with ignorance (of history and human nature) is not an enlightened combination.
Dan,
You’re absolutely right… I used the wrong word, sorry. In fact, your correction further emphasizes my point… the reason the founders were concerned (and it has nothing to do with City Hall’s nativity scene).
#7 Toady: “Stories about proteins self-assembling into dinosaurs over long periods of time are about as ‘rational’ as the Spaghetti Monster.”
Oh geez. So…because you cannot envision any non-divine evolutionary mechanism GodDidIt?
That kind of thinking proves nothing except the limits of your imagination. Here is the deal; the burden of proof is on the belier to prove:
- God exists
- God created the universe and everything in it
The burden of proof is not on the non-believer.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Hmmmmmm
Not ANY establishment of religion,
Nor THE establishment of religion,
it says ANestablishment of religion!
In other words, they aren’t allowed to pick one.
However;
it goes on to say;
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
What I find offensive is all of the “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” that the left chooses to engage in on a regulare basis, in the Name of makeing no law respecting any or the establishment of religion.
jd
Scott R;
No one has proved that unconscious matter can self organize into conscious organisms. Try as they can, scientists cannot do it in a lab.
The burden of proof is on those who insist proteins are as magical as those pink unicorns …
But, ScottR.. those who believe in the current theoy of evolution are equally believers… you simply choose to believe slightly different things, based on slightly different types of “evidence”. Pseudoskepticism is no better than dogmatic belief.
“The only thing I believe, is that the Universe is far more complex than I shall ever understand.” – Robert Anton Wilson
The Spaghetti Monster,
No one has proved that unconscious matter can self organize into conscious organisms.
Maybe not. But the reverse is certainly true. Look at many of our Congresscritters.
It happens over here in Britain too. Agents of the Politically Correct Thought Police demand the removal of the word Christmas and ant reference to God, Christ, Mary, nativity scences, Angels and crosses on grounds that it may offend non Christians.
I’m an atheist and I am not offended by any of it nor are any of the Jewish, Hindu or Muslim people I know. In fact those from the Indian sub continent are usually pleased to be wished a Happy Christmas as it shows Britishers are including them in our celebration. Jewish people are well integrated but as always appreciative of a friendly gesture.
It seems to me that most pop-”atheists”, such as #2. freeomalley, #7 Toady, #10 ScottR, and also the author Dan Miller, are simply trying to claim some non-existent spiritual high ground by advocating a non-believing stance. They’re just being lazy.
The Christian position of reaching out to others is based on saving total losers from inevitable horrible consequences. Religious people believe that murderers, alcoholics, child-molesters, and cannibals can be saved and changed into normal people. It does happen, not every time, but it happens and it requires work.
Face it, the only thing that has ever changed the dark hearts of evil people is God’s love. From the pop-secular message, it appears that atheists are people who just can’t be bothered to put a hand out to losers. They’re quite happy to simply pour a glass of plonk, flop onto the sofa, and let the whole awkward issue of evil quietly slip away into fantasyland.
I believe we have the author commenting on his essay . Nice work Dan , but your skepticism and disbelieve shine through.
You have to keep working at it and it will finally dawn on you. That phrase ‘Seek him and he will find you, is staggeringly true . But , time will work in His favor,not yours .
Larsen;
Most people aren’t interested in reaching out to losers, regardless of belief. The harsh fact is you can’t help those who won’t help themselves.
Christmas decorations shouldn’t be put up on public property on the grounds that it’s a frivolous expense on the taxpayer dime. If some private party wants to donate decorations and labor, then that’s a another discussion.
Here, without further comment, are Garrison Keelor’s Christmas commentary and Power Line’s a commentary on his commentary. I think my position is clear from my article; if not, then I screwed up.
I can understand putting the occasional holier-than-thou zealot in their place, but to spend good money on a billboard proclaiming There Is No God seems a bit mean-spirited. As an agnostic who grew up as a moderately religious Methodist, I can see both sides of the argument. I agree with Ratatosk – believers cannot prove there is a God and atheists cannot prove there is not one. But I have to say that my sense of decency, and I would argue society’s sense of decency as a whole, comes more from believers than it does from non-believers. I honestly feel sorry for any religious child who has seen that billboard and is now second-guessing his faith. If faith in God gives some people solace in this hectic world, why would anyone want to ruin that? Misery loves company is my best guess.
JD,
I agree that most atheists hate God, however, they cannot hate that which does not exist, no? As I understand it, atheists deny the existence of God. If so, then at what do they direct their anger? At the concept of a supreme being? Perhaps, but it seems they are more frustrated that the supreme being in question does not grant their every wish, thereby proving and justifying its own existence.
My suspicion is that, given the opportunity to engage in a reasonable discussion of world view with a thoughtful atheist, one would conclude that they are deeply disillusioned with their fellow humans, and are lashing out at them at the most primal level. When all is said and done, atheism is just as much a belief system as any religion, and is therefore a religion itself.
Atheism is not, in my view, a focus upon reason, but rather, an attempt to abase the beliefs of others in a cynical attempt to thusly elevate their conceit to their own intellectual superiority.
We’ll all find out someday whether there is a God or not. I firmly believe there is and that by following His advice as given in scripture, and taking advantage of Christ’s atoning sacrifice will result in great happiness on Earth and in the hereafter. The one agnostic I know has one of the strongest moral compasses I’ve seen. He has a code of moral conduct that he believes and he follows it, because he believes it will produce happiness and success. If I’m wrong and there is no God (I’m not) I’ve still lived a happy and successful life and so has he. I think that is the point here. Being intolerant and taking offense are acts that won’t produce happiness, regardless of our religious beliefs.
18. Larsen E Whipsnade:
“It seems to me that most pop-”atheists”, such as #2. freeomalley, #7 Toady, #10 ScottR, and also the author Dan Miller, are simply trying to claim some non-existent spiritual high ground by advocating a non-believing stance. They’re just being lazy.”
Huh? Where did I claim some spiritual high ground? And where do I ADVOCATE a non-believing stance? Why so threatened by atheism?
What you believe is your own business. And please, don’t lump all atheists together (you to #24 Stakes) as I find atheists that are statists or atheists that trumpet the fact and throw it in your face to be annoying and off base as well.
Live and let live says I – unless you are some proselytizing a$$hole – cause then you’re gonna hear an earful!
Having ended the article with a quote from Uncle Jay, this seems appropriate.
Merry Christmas or whatever to all.
Dan Miller
26. ScottR: “Live and let live says I – unless you are some proselytizing a$$hole – cause then you’re gonna hear an earful!”
Haven’t heard an earful yet, so I’m probably correct that folks who don’t like proselytizing are simply fat, bone-lazy, and too self-centered to get off the sofa and try to save some losers. What would you do if you saw someone trying to save a drowning man? Tell him to mind his own business?
To those of you who celebrate it, Merry Christmas.
Not merry whatever, or any of the politically correct garbage bandied about by trashheads on the planet.
Merry Christmas.
It’s 24 December about 15:30 in the afternooon and soon those Christians who have no been scared out of Beit LeHem by the Wahhabi pigs who run the place these days will gather to celebrate the Gregorian Christmas. In a few weeks they will gather to celebrate Christmas according to the Orthodox calendar, and later still according to other calendars.
Merry Christmas.
We’ll leave aside all the stuff about the church fathers having stolen 25 December (by whatever tally) to compete with Saturnalia, or the birthday of Mithras, or the astrological symbolism of it all….
Merry Christmas.
The land of MY forefathers was under foreign occupation 2,000 years ago, and was always one stabbing away from civil war. Today it is under the rule of puppets of the United States, and it is one bullet away from civil war.
Merry Christmas.
And Dan, have a nice evening. Enjoy a hot toddy with the bride. Tomorrow is Friday, and the weekend starts tomorrow afternoon. You wrote an enjoyable article.
Blessings from Liberated Samaria,
Ruvy
By the way, Dan,
May your health improve over the coming year; and may you get your heart’s desires (in addition to good pipe tobacco).
Thanks, Ruvy. I just looked up the dates for Chanukah, so I guess it’s too late to wish you a Happy Chanukah. Will you accept my best wishes anyway, retroactively?
Best wishes from Panama to your and yours.
Dan
ScottR, proving the existence of God could be done using the St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of the Existence of God, however, doing so would be of little consequence to you, because it tells you nothing about God’s nature or which religion, if any, is right about the nature of God. Therefore, I submit to you that the Resurrection of Jesus constitutes prima facie evidence of the existence of the God of the Bible, and wish to reframe the question to “Did Jesus rise from the dead?”
Now we can establish that there are a finite number of possible scenarios, and refute each one until one remains, confirming it to be the truth by process of elimination. This is a negative proof, a legitimate logical analysis of a finite number of options.
1. There was no such person as Jesus of Nazarath.
2. Jesus did not die on the cross, but merely passed out from shock or blood loss, was mistaken for dead, and taken down and buried alive, regaining consciousness several hours later, and walked out of his tomb alive.
3. Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and his body was stolen.
4. Jesus’ body remains in the tomb, and all accounts of people seeing him alive after the crucifixion were mere hysteria.
5. Jesus indeed rose from the dead.
#1 can be dismissed out of hand due to the overwhelming historical evidence that a man called Jesus of Nazarath did walk the Earth. Furthermore, a legend takes time to build. You could not convince tens of thousands of people in AD 45 that a non-existent man or an amalgamation of several people into one lived nary 15 years earlier. Clearly, there was such a man as Jesus of Nazarath who drew enough attention to spawn a massive religious movement, that eventually grew into the dominant religion of the Empire.
#2 can be dismissed as medically impossible. If the beatings and crucifixion didn’t kill him, dehydration and/or infection would have, due to a lack of medical attention for at least two days after suffering wounds bad enough to convince a Roman soldier that he was dead. Furthermore, Jesus’ side was pierced by a spear because the executioner was shocked He had died so quickly, and wanted to test whether or not He had actually died. Besides that, even if Jesus had somehow survived all of that, a battered, bloody and dehydrated man on the verge of death would not have the strength to roll away a massive stone placed in front of his tomb, nor could he possibly convince anyone that he had miraculously risen from the dead, for he would not look the part.
#3 makes no sense because it fails to account for the Roman sentries placed to guard the tomb to prevent exactly that scenario. In an effort to squelch rumors of the Resurrection, the Pharassies requested a guard watch be kept to make sure no one stole the body, unwittingly destroying any plausible deniability for the Resurrection. Even if the Apostles had bribed the guards to let them take the body (which is implausible for several reasons- the guards would be fools to accept such a bribe, for they would be severely punished, and perhaps killed for letting the body go missing, and besides, where would the Apostles get the courage to pull a stunt like that after they got scared and ran away from their Master while He was on trial, and their leader even denied his Master), it still doesn’t account for the fact that one by one, the Apostles refused to recant their story, choosing to die in very painful ways instead. Surely if they had stolen the body, one of them would confess it to save his own skin. One or two might be fanatical enough to die for a scam, but ten out of eleven, with the survivor living only after surviving multiple, very painful attempts on his life and still not recanting?
#4 can be ruled out by considering that the source and summit of the Christian faith is the Resurrection, and if it didn’t happen, Christianity is worse than useless. Many men wanted to destroy Christianity in its infancy, just as many today wish there was never such a thing as Christianity. To destroy Christianity by force proved impossible, but to destroy Christianity by reason would be easy, if only the enemies of Jesus could have produced His Body after His followers had claimed He had Arisen. If Jesus’ body remained in the tomb, or if it had been moved by His enemies, they surely would have paraded it through the streets to end Christianity before it grew popular. The only explanation for them not doing that is that they couldn’t, because they didn’t have the body.
By process of elimination, that proves Jesus is Risen.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/christmas-satire-and-reality/2/#comment-25
25. ReNae: “We’ll all find out someday whether there is a God or not.”
If you are right, and there is an afterlife and a God, then my atheism will be proven wrong. If you are wrong and there is no afterlife, then you will NOT be proven wrong, because you will not be there to see the proof.