Jack comments on my post below, which argues that James Lileks' oh-isn't-that-odd-but-I-don't-mean-anything-by-the-observations regarding the purported controversy over "Merry Christmas" are a but thin. Jack writes:
In Lileks response to Wolcott's idiocy he illustrates the slow, steady abatement of the term 'Merry Christmas' in Christmas ads--and they are Christmas ads, there's no 'holiday' other than Christmas whose focal point is so riveted to the giving of gifts(and hence the opurchase of retail goods).
This is explained by the fact that businesses like to make money. There is no unseen hand, no secret cabal of ACLU lawyers, no government watchman from OSHA demanding that businesses avoid wishing you a Merry Christmas. There are only the demands of capitalism. Right or wrong, the market creates the impression that a secular Christmas season is best for business.
My beef with the purportedly world-weary Lileks is that he implies some secret history when there is only the world. If he's pissed/bothered/annoyedly observant about how businesses have de-Christmasized Christmas over the past 40 years, put the blame where it belongs: on the businesses. Or, more properly, on capitalism.
If you're unpersuaded, consider my case (a mid-level associate attorney at a largish firm). I'd rather a hundred clients think I'm too pc if it meant that one client wasn't offended by an off-target Xmas wish. Too pc will typically not cost me anyone's business; too pc is the norm of the business world. Too religious (or too stridently religious), however, might.
That said, I do keep track -- to the extent possible -- of my client's religious preferences, and act (and wish) accordingly. But that's good business. Blindly wishing my Jewish clients a "Merry Christmas" as part of some faux right-wing "rage against the machine," ain't.
Isn't there anything else going on out there? I see this freakin' topic on every blog. Stop it already, Jesus.
Posted by: Ugh | December 22, 2004 at 03:47 PM
Publius over at Legal Fiction wrote a post on this taking off from (IIRC) a comment by Jonah Goldberg.
Publius' point (as mangled by me) was that free market capitalism is perhaps the most destructive force in our culture. From that perspective it's odd that there is such an alliance, if not an identity, between those who embrace free markets unreservedly and those who feel so much under siege in "the culture war" -- because the changes in our culture are largely a product of capitalism, not liberals.
Probably others have pointed that out, but that post stuck with me particularly.
Posted by: Doh | December 22, 2004 at 03:48 PM
Can anyone point to the source of this new persecution complex? Are there entities feeding it? How do they benefit from feeding it?
Posted by: Roxanne | December 22, 2004 at 03:51 PM
I promise that this is my last one, Ugh.
Posted by: von | December 22, 2004 at 03:54 PM
Stop it already, Jesus.
Oh, so that's von's secret identity!
Posted by: kenB | December 22, 2004 at 03:55 PM
I think he was addressing Jesus, von. Odd place to put a prayer, but hey, Catholics pray by lighting candles. Or something.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | December 22, 2004 at 03:57 PM
Brilliant!
Posted by: Slartibartfast | December 22, 2004 at 03:57 PM
Can anyone point to the source of this new persecution complex? Are there entities feeding it? How do they benefit from feeding it?
I've speculated on this in the past and think, from experiencing it in my family, it stems from one source, for three reasons. The source is the fundamentalist Christian leadership---from the national figures down to your local ministers.
The first reason is actually close to what they claim (there's a grain of truth in most closley held convictions): political correctness has altered the landscape, and they (white, Christian, middle-to-upper class) are no longer the unquestioned top of the food chain in the US(they're still the top, but they're now openly questioned). The second reason is this helps them (the leaders) rally their congregations, puts them in a fighting mood.
The third reason pertains particularly to fundamentalists, whose arguments crumble when confronted with the logic they're more frequently encountering now that they're being openly questioned (e.g., why is gay sex an abomination when eating shell fish is apparently not any longer), and so they retreat into this "victim" pose as a defense.
Often, my brother, who is a gentle soul and all around good guy who just so happens to also be a devout Born-Again Christian, will debate me on issues up to the point he can't explain inconsistencies. Often at that point he'll revert, as if taught to, to how I'm "badgering him" or "attacking him" or how Christians feel like they're under attack in general. It ends the discussion on a different note, leaving the inconsistency unaccounted for. It seems intentional to me.
Posted by: Edward | December 22, 2004 at 04:05 PM
Actually thought it was a clever tongue in cheek reference when here I am complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people who (supposedly) are trying to get businesses to stop saying "Merry Christmas."
I actually think Mr. Garrison's Merry F**** Christmas song has the best commentary on this phenomenon.
Posted by: Ugh | December 22, 2004 at 04:31 PM
I'm so old, I can remember when Lileks would have made fun of ultratouchy, paranoid fools who say things like
Riiiight. At least Lileks' reply to Wolcott gives him an actual person to respond to. I prefer those columns to the ones where he dreams up an imaginary liberal, writes all his lines for him, and then totally schools him.
I've rather come to dislike Lileks.
Posted by: Ted Barlow | December 22, 2004 at 04:41 PM
Can anyone point to the source of this new persecution complex? Are there entities feeding it? How do they benefit from feeding it?
Aaahhh...it's the same crowd touting the meme that you can't pray in schools or have the 50 ft. sandstone Jesus in the workplace.
I'm noticing this is a strong theme where I attend mass and the associated K of C is concurrently running a contest for the kiddies for the best portrayal of putting 'Christ' back in Christmas.
Posted by: Jadegold | December 22, 2004 at 04:47 PM
I'm amazed he can brave department stores at all, given that they're such huge targets to the terrorists that live in his mind.
Posted by: carpeicthus | December 22, 2004 at 04:50 PM
I'm amazed he can brave department stores at all, given that they're such huge targets to the terrorists that live in his mind.
Hey, now. Minnesota has to be a high priority target for Al Qaeda. After all, they hate our lutefisk and lefsa.
Posted by: Jadegold | December 22, 2004 at 04:57 PM
Jadegold: I liked it so much better when all the K of C did was cook pancakes and fried fish. And run the bingo games.
Posted by: Roxanne | December 22, 2004 at 05:01 PM
Jadegold: I liked it so much better when all the K of C did was cook pancakes and fried fish. And run the bingo games.
Posted by: Roxanne | December 22, 2004 at 05:01 PM
I liked it so much better when all the K of C did was cook pancakes and fried fish. And run the bingo games.
For the most part, the K of C rank and file are pretty cool; they're happy to do some community service fundraising/projects and throw BBQs that involve a lot of cold beer. Where else can you get a stiff vodka tonic for a buck?
Unfortunately, you also have the district chapters where the kids who never made the student council cut reside...
Posted by: Jadegold | December 22, 2004 at 05:15 PM
"Can anyone point to the source of this new persecution complex? Are there entities feeding it? How do they benefit from feeding it?"
I don't think it's new. It's just getting more and better voice than in the past, because of the explosion of media outlets.
I picked up 'Born Fighting' by James Webb the other day. If anyone knows Timmy the WD, I'd recommend this for a Christmas present, because I think he'd really enjoy it. (Maybe others here would as well, but of him I know enough to be sure).
I haven't gotten to the part where it adds to the coverage of the same ground in "Albion's Seed" yet, although I'm sure that's coming. Anyway, the culture of conservative victimhood, and plenty of other aspects of contemporary red-state life, are well covered.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | December 22, 2004 at 06:22 PM
The other factor feeding the persecution complex is that Christians are told in the Bible that they will suffer and be persecuted for being followers of Jesus. "So," many of them figure, "if I am a Christian, I must be being persecuted, for the Bible tells me so." They then search out inane cultural things to point to as persecution. And there's an enormous feedback loop, too, because the more they whine about stuff, the more pushback they get.
Posted by: Phil | December 22, 2004 at 06:28 PM
"Can anyone point to the source of this new persecution complex? Are there entities feeding it? How do they benefit from feeding it?"
"I've speculated on this in the past and think, from experiencing it in my family, it stems from one source, for three reasons."
More excuses... I guess neither one of you guys even tried to google up any reasons.
How the ACLU Grinch Steals Christmas
Are Public Nativity Displays Constitutional?
By Alan E. Sears
December 12, 2003
For 75 years, the Creche at Balch Elementary School in Massachusetts has been a Christmas tradition. But this year, something repugnant has been added to the tradition: a lawsuit from the ACLU to eliminate the nativity scene on the school lawn.
Students threatened by Christmas?
ACLU warns of lawsuit unless principal censors celebration
Posted: November 21, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
The Colorado ACLU is threatening to sue a school if the principal refuses to censor Christmas for its students.
In a joint letter with the Anti-Defamation League, the state American Civil Liberties Union alleged "Jewish students no longer feel safe or welcome" at the Elbert County Charter School in Elizabeth, Colo.
American Spectator
12-26-97 R. Emmett Tyrell
The battle against controversial aspects of American heritage is not without its setbacks. In fact, the Journal reports a fierce struggle taking place this season in Jersey City, New Jersey. In 1994 the ACLU managed to persuade local courts to banish the town's Christmas nativity scene and menorah from the lawns of City Hall.
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to grasp the facts, but maybe it does...
Posted by: tolittletime | December 22, 2004 at 08:00 PM
Yes, to (which I imagine should be 'too'). Those cases involve the removal of explicity Christian religious iconography from government and public property. You could have had an even easier time bringing up the 10 Commandments sculpture. That has nothing to do with Christmas. It has to do with the struggle over the proper level of religious observance by government entities. And it has nothing to do with whether or not people screech in horror when Lileks says 'Merry Christmas' at whatever weird satanic mall he goes to (For reference, I live in pagan Seattle, and never in my entire life has anyone looked even slightly taken aback at 'Merry Christmas'. And I live in a predominantly Jewish section of town. Everyone's clever enough to know you mean well.)
Posted by: sidereal | December 22, 2004 at 08:08 PM
Speaking as a second generation ACLU member, I think that it would be better to insist that the school invest in and display religious symbols of other traditions, rather than feed the faux-persecution comlex of people who want their symbols to be the exclusive ones chosen for display.
I am a teacher so I am very aware of the pressures on the schools to avoid the appearance of favoring one religion. I support the effort to keep public istitutions free of religious bias. I don't like the arrogat attitude of peole who say, "Most of us are Christians so why can't we have or display?" They can have their display--a their home or church. Schools, however, belong to everybody.
But I think it works better to be inclusive of many religions, rather than exclusive of all religious references.
Posted by: lily | December 22, 2004 at 08:23 PM
"Christians Under Siege" is one of the deadlier Pauline inventions. Charles Freeman, in the chapter on Eastern Christianity of The Closing of the Western Mind, states that a noisy lament about the weakness of "the Church" persisted even after Christianity became a powerful, state-sponsored sect. The fundamentalist mission to cleanse the world of every wickedness, no matter how small, and its conviction that a terrible end is upon us whether or not the world is so cleansed have their roots in Revelation, and the combination has always been useful to institutional churches.
Posted by: R J Keefe | December 22, 2004 at 09:32 PM
One cannot but be astounded at the Left's attitude toward Christianity. Why is that one person's "discomfort" should take priority over the beliefs of the majority? There is alot of claptrap spread by the Left regaqrding other religions and their "value." I'd love to see all these Leftist loons live in Syria or Iran and then teach about religion. Perhaps they'd learn what tolerance is and that our society wasn't the result of Hinduism, Budists, Muslims, or Gaia worshippers but Christians who made it possible for all faiths to be respected. The odd thing is that those who hate religion and have commenced their attacks on Christianity would substitute in its place the values of the ACLU. NAMBLA anyone?
Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson | December 22, 2004 at 11:53 PM
One cannot but be astounded at the Left's attitude toward Christianity. Why is that one person's "discomfort" should take priority over the beliefs of the majority? There is alot of claptrap spread by the Left regaqrding other religions and their "value." I'd love to see all these Leftist loons live in Syria or Iran and then teach about religion. Perhaps they'd learn what tolerance is and that our society wasn't the result of Hinduism, Budists, Muslims, or Gaia worshippers but Christians who made it possible for all faiths to be respected. The odd thing is that those who hate religion and have commenced their attacks on Christianity would substitute in its place the values of the ACLU. NAMBLA anyone?
Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson | December 22, 2004 at 11:54 PM
Astounding, indeed:
"One cannot but be astounded at the Left's attitude toward Christianity."
What Left? What attitude? Life is easier when you make up cartoon images, and then do battle with them.
"Why is that one person's "discomfort" should take priority over the beliefs of the majority?"
Indeed. Why would people writing a constitution put in a clause that prohibits the establishment of religion, if that's what the majority wants? Why would they put in a clause precluding the state from interfering with the free exercise, if somebody wants to pursue some kind of minority religion that the majority knows to be invalid or blasphemous?
"There is alot of claptrap spread by the Left regaqrding other religions and their 'value.'"
Now the President is a leftist? Or are you calling him a liar?
"I'd love to see all these Leftist loons live in Syria or Iran and then teach about religion."
Pretty different situations, but the point is clear enough -- you're suggesting we send secularists to countries with a strong theocratic bent, so they can come back and tell us what a bad idea theocracy is. A fine idea, but really they probably don't actually need to live there to see this.
"Perhaps they'd learn what tolerance is . . . "
Seems to me that a visitor to such a place, like the homes of our aspiring American Taliban would learn what tolerance isn't. If you're trying to say that they would learn to be tolerant of state manifestations of favoritism towards a particular religion, then I'm afraid you've lost me. What about a sojourn in Iran would make a person want the Alabama Supreme Court to have its 10 commandments display?
" . . . and that our society wasn't the result of Hinduism, Budists, Muslims, or Gaia worshippers but Christians who made it possible for all faiths to be respected."
Well, when you're just making up what other folks believe, and don't have to care about reality at all, it's easy to make up beliefs that are ridiculous on their face. I have never in my life heard anyone say that American religious toleration was the result of Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam. Or Gaia worshippers. I've never even heard it suggested, before now, that anyone believes this. Everyone knows that American religious liberty has deep roots -- back to Roger Williams. And ol' Rog understood the need to keep the magistrates out of the religion business. OK, did Williams learn a thing or two about Xtian charity from the Narragansetts (as opposed to John Winthrop and the Rev. Cotton)? Maybe we ought to score a point for the Gaia worshiipers on that one.
"The odd thing is that those who hate religion and have commenced their attacks on Christianity would substitute in its place the values of the ACLU."
I know of no one trying to eradicate Christianity. If people calling themselves Christians would stop trying to get state endorsements of their faith at every turn -- if they had the confidence in their religion to believe in it even if the coinage didn't proclaim their trust -- then the whole controversy would come to a complete halt. Behind every ACLU lawsuit is someone trying to use the government to advance his/her religion.
"NAMBLA anyone?"
I don't share the views of this organization, but don't see why they don't have the right to have views, and express them, so long as they do not violate the law. I've never had anyone try to convert me to those views, and don't see the NAMBLA trying to get endorsements of their views inserted into the public schools, courts, or on the coinage.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | December 23, 2004 at 12:38 AM
Thomas J. Jackson: I'd love to see all these Leftist loons live in Syria or Iran and then teach about religion.
Mr. Jackson, did you even consider how you would fare in those countries? Did you bother to perform the thought-experiment, or did you skip it and just assume the outcome would favor your viewpoint? Now, I won't assume that a few weeks of truly brutal religious oppression would teach you to appreciate having folks like the ACLU around to fight for your right to make your own religious choices, free of governmental guidance, but I would certainly hope it would.
But, seeing as this isn't your position now, please tell us which religious functions you think should be the province of government? Would you limit it to the erection and maintenance of shrines? Would you have it go further? What level of influence must our leaders have over the citizens' faith before our culture won't be perceived, in your eyes, as "hating" religion?
Posted by: Gromit | December 23, 2004 at 01:16 AM
Sorry, but the handle "Thomas J. Jackson" (aka as "Stonewall") and the email address (Swaziland at msn.com) leads me to suggest that this poster has a bit of a chip on his or her shoulder. I would tell the poster to go suck on a lemon, but I suppose we should be glad s/he didn't use Nathan B. Forrest as a handle.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | December 23, 2004 at 03:34 AM
Von, you are right businesses try to be politically correct and certainly don't want to offend anyone.
But for the last ten years or so the ACLU has threatened to sue my town because of a "creche" on the public square (according to the local paper), there are no mixed messages (no Santa, no Rudolph, no other symbol, no mixed message) it doesn't have to be attended to like some other towns. The creche just sits there to remind us that Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. I see nothing wrong with that message on the public square.
Merry Christmas Von.
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | December 23, 2004 at 07:27 AM
Merry Christmas, TtWD. I'll address your comment in my response to Thomas Jackson below
Liberal Japonicus, with respect, your discussion of Mr. Jackson's handle is a variation of an ad hominem attack. Address the argument, not the man.
Thomas J. Jackson --
Why is that one person's "discomfort" should take priority over the beliefs of the majority?
Well, as I noted in my post (which I presume you intended to address), it's because it makes good business sense.
Perhaps they'd learn what tolerance is and that our society wasn't the result of Hinduism, Budists, Muslims, or Gaia worshippers but Christians who made it possible for all faiths to be respected.
You won't find me arguing that there wasn't a peculiar genius in Western Europe from the late 1600s to the mid-1800s, and that it was largely the product of well-meaning, good thinking Christians. Note, however, that acknowledging the benefits of Christianity and/or the liberal ideals of Western Europe is not the same as ignoring their faults or finding no beauty or benefit in other cultures. Only fools reduce the world to a battle between the West and Multiculturalism.
The odd thing is that those who hate religion and have commenced their attacks on Christianity would substitute in its place the values of the ACLU. NAMBLA anyone?
The ACLU will, of course, be misunderstood by those who do not examine it closely.
The creche just sits there to remind us that Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. I see nothing wrong with that message on the public square.
I don't have a problem with that either, TtWD. (Being grateful to the ACLU for presenting its side of the issue is, of course, different from believing that the ACLU's view should prevail.
Posted by: von | December 23, 2004 at 09:35 AM
von, if Thomas J. Jackson with the email address of Swaziland at msn dot com has a reason for having the handle of a leading military leader of the confederacy and an email address of an African country, I would love to hear it. But until then, I would suggest that he is a troll who is simply interested in provoking a response, which seems to violate the spirit, if not the letter of the posting rules. If you would like to respond to him, that is your privilege, but to suggest that you and others are wasting your time is ad hominem?
Posted by: liberal japonicus | December 23, 2004 at 09:59 AM
Hey, LJ, I get the implications and the possibilities. But I define trolls by behavior, and try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt (if I'm in a good mood, at least).
Posted by: von | December 23, 2004 at 10:13 AM
On a related note:
The city of Jerusalem distributed free Christmas trees to Christians on Thursday as part of a longstanding tradition.
For decades, Israel has distributed the trees free of charge, particularly to the ex-patriot community of Christian leaders, journalists, diplomats and others.
One observer quipped that the Jewish State is probably the only country in the world that gives away free Christmas trees to Christians.
It is "symbolic of the way Jerusalem unites all three monotheistic religions," said Jerusalem municipality spokesman Gideon Schmerling in a statement.
The trees are donated by the Jewish National Fund, which is the country's forestry agency.
"Every year we distribute about 1,200 Christmas trees to religious leaders from different churches, diplomats, U.N. representatives, U.N. peacekeepers and the foreign press," said Paul Ginsberg, head of the forestry department of northern Israel.
Posted by: Stan LS | December 23, 2004 at 11:58 AM
It is "symbolic of the way Jerusalem unites all three monotheistic religions," said Jerusalem municipality spokesman Gideon Schmerling in a statement.
That's a very nice gesture (seriously, thanks for sharing), but how does symbolize the unification of all three religions?
Posted by: Edward | December 23, 2004 at 12:09 PM
Edward,
Not sure. I just thought it was an interesting fact given the silliness that goes on here in US when it comes to Xmas and other religious holidays.
Posted by: Stan LS | December 23, 2004 at 12:16 PM
Concerning Christmas and capitalism, I'm always confused by one particular segment of political society who wants me to simultaneously juice up my "animal spirits" AND, for God's sake, stop behaving like an animal.
Concerning traditional displays of Christmas in the public square, my wish (secular but curious about spiritual matters) would be for a return to the status quo ante.
When that might have existed is open to considerable argument. But a "shut up" to both sides (are there only two?) seems to me to be required to avoid something bad this way comes.
Posted by: John Thullen | December 23, 2004 at 12:19 PM
Agreed Stan,
by the way, Happy Holidays to you and yours!
e
Posted by: Edward | December 23, 2004 at 12:21 PM
Thanks! Merry Xmas and Happy New Year!
Posted by: Stan LS | December 23, 2004 at 12:28 PM
To be fair, Roger Williams absorbed a lot about religious liberty from Lord Coke, for whom he clerked. However, it was the experiences of state hindrance of free exercise (under Bishop Laud) and of establishment (under Winthrop) and his own realizations about the impractibility of intolerance that led him to the position we know him for.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | December 23, 2004 at 12:29 PM
That's a nice story, Stan. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by: von | December 23, 2004 at 12:42 PM
"Perhaps they'd learn what tolerance is and that our society wasn't the result of Hinduism, Budists, Muslims, or Gaia worshippers but Christians who made it possible for all faiths to be respected."
Actually, Thomas, it was Deists who did that. The same ones who wanted to make sure that the federal government and the church had nothing to do with each other.
Posted by: Prodigal | December 24, 2004 at 09:21 PM
Can anyone point to the source of this new persecution complex? Are there entities feeding it? How do they benefit from feeding it?
The persecution complex is not new. Consider the following rant:
This is from The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem, written by Henry Ford in 1921.
The propaganda stays the same, only the name of the scapegoat changes.
Posted by: felixrayman | December 25, 2004 at 06:50 PM
After all, they hate our lutefisk and lefsa.
Be fair. We all hate your lutefisk.
[Your lefsa's quite tasty, though!]
Posted by: Anarch | December 27, 2004 at 12:14 AM