Around Halloween ash braces herself for the invariable onslaught on the part of Christmas enthusiasts who not-so-secretly consider this a Christian nation. Although they don’t express themselves so overtly, from this mindset comes the natural desire to foist that holiday – and only that holiday – upon the whole society, perceiving themselves martyrs for discrimination and intolerance when not all non-Christians are willing to comply. In this series of letters, thoughts from others alternate with responses from ash. Watch how the precise subject matter shifts:
The annual war on Christmas is in full swing
My husband and I just got back from the opening of “The Nativity Story.” This is a wonderful movie depicting the birth of Christ and is just in time for Christmas.
Of course, it is of no surprise that the annual war on Christmas is already in full force. A decision by the city of Chicago officials banned the producers from showing trailers of the movie on television monitors at an annual German Christmas Festival. The movie highlights the true meaning of Christmas and the city officials didn’t want anyone to be offended by a longstanding tradition that has been around for hundreds of years.
With each passing year secular fundamentalists instill into the American culture the notion that the word Christmas is offensive. This isn’t a war over “Jingle Bells” or green holly wreaths. They don’t want people to know that Christmas reminds people of the unique historical role that Christianity has and its impact in America.
Our Supreme Court has acknowledged that our government has long recognized holidays with religious significance such as Christmas. Putting up a Nativity scene or saying “Merry Christmas” doesn’t establish religion. This is about the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Christmas offers a message that God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, on a mission to die for the sins of the world. Ninety-five percent of Americans freely celebrate Christmas. Will Christmas be around for the next generation?
ash laughs. That’s called doublethink. Perpetrators are victims; insiders are outsiders:
On the 19th day before Christmas – and what took so long? – comes the annual War Against the War Against Christmas to the editorial pages of the State Journal-Register.
While I confess total ignorance of a decision in Chicago to censor the publicity of a movie about Christ’s birth (though I note the Chicago-based program Ebert and Roeper featured a full review of said film), I do know what I experience regarding the yearly promotion of Christmas with my very own senses. For those not engaged with society, let me assure you it is everywhere and, contrary to the dire predictions of the letter-writer, not to be extinguished by “secular fundamentalists” (formerly known as “secular humanists”) anytime soon.
Speaking of the reconfiguration of the term (did Bill O’Reilly invent it? It sounds like something from his wildly successful “Culture Warrior,” uh, book in time for the, er, holidays), I am one. If it is – and of course it is – intended as a slur against those of us whose morality is informed from within, I choose to receive it as praise. It is much more difficult to be virtuous without the constant admonitions and threats of a hellish afterlife to compel one’s conformity to ethical behavior. Which, by the way, is one of religion’s proudest functions.
Christmas is thriving as an industry and as a ubiquitous presence in American life for now approaching two full months before it arrives. For those who embrace it, it’s a joyful season, a season unto itself. For those who merely tolerate it, it can be a pleasant distraction from drudgery, or it can be a downright aggravation. But my tolerance ends where another’s declarations of war against the so-called war against Christmas begin. Christmas oozes into almost every pore of the American complexion; some won’t be satisfied until it occupies each and every one.
The real war is the war against the small percentage of us who don’t subscribe to Christianity. Those who say otherwise have it exactly backward.
But some people either aren’t interested in, can’t accept, or don’t want to know the truth. Another writer persists, this time under the mistaken assumption that if one is not a Christian, one must be a – what else – God denier:
Christmas celebration not a war vs. atheists
It just not the Christmas season until the atheists begin their attacks on Christians for their celebration of the holidays.
In a change of tactics, ash took the initiative by placing herself and other atheists in a defensive position by mistakenly believing they are being attacked for their refusal to celebrate Christ’s birth.
What ash fails to understand is that this season is not about her and whether she believes in the Lord Jesus, but rather a time of celebration by those who do, and so it’s sad when she can’t let her frustrations end without further attacking Christians for their belief in what she refers to as “… a hellish afterlife to compel one’s conformity to ethical behavior.”
Good Christians are all taught to be tolerant of the beliefs of others and so this is not an attempt to proselytize ash but rather to ask her to allow us to express our gratitude for the birth of our Lord and to keep to herself her beliefs on an afterlife and the ultimate disposition of her soul.
As wonderful as it would be if she decided to celebrate the birth of our Lord, she should understand that nobody is going to chastise her for failing to do so. All that is asked of her is that she keeps her contempt for Christianity to herself and in return she will be granted the same courtesy when she celebrates Halloween.
The celebration of the Christmas season is not a war against atheists as she so sadly believes but rather a time of joy and thanksgiving to celebrate the birth of our Lord.
Now ash’s friend steps in to declare that “Halloween” cheap shot fighting words. Note how differently he addresses the issue from her letter, which follows his:
I see another shot in the so-called "War Over Christmas" has been
fired - from the evangelical side.
In it the writer assumes that prolific contributor ash is
an atheist - proceeding, I suppose on the Malcolm X premise that "if
you aren't with us you must be against us". And we all know the
problem with assuming, don't we.
The writer further states that "Good Christians" are taught to be
tolerant of the beliefs of others ... and then goes on in the same
sentence to state "keep to herself her beliefs". An obvious
contradiction in terms, if ever I saw one.
In a further gaffe, the writer, demonstrating no clear knowledge of
Christianity states "she (Cormulley) will be granted the same courtesy
when she celebrates Halloween". Odd that. After accusing Ms. Cormulley
of atheism she is assumed to celebrate a Christian holiday - All
Hallow's Eve.
Don’t be thrown by the last paragraph, which ash considers a “two-fer”: pirouetting from the matter at hand to an aside clarifying another point:
It figured someone would take the gross exaggeration “war” literally (though of course the War Against Christmas is merely a figure of speech), insist that since no one is forcing me to convert to Christianity there is no “war,” but since we’re on the subject, add that it would be so great if I would know the joy of Our Lord.
One side can hyperbolize while the other side is being overblown. That’s trying to have it both ways and, by the way, to what, exactly, does “Christian soldier” refer? I’m not sad about missing out on the panacea of religion but I am indignant at the suggestion that unless I accept someone else’s my life must be unfulfilled.
Pretend you’re a member of a minority faith – or no faith – in a culture of proselytizers and get back to me on whether you’re unhappy or just plain aggravated every time you hear America declared a “Christian nation.” Stop it, please. Thanks but no thanks.
Actually, the next time around I’d prefer to hear from another non-Christian who resents the intrusion not of Christmas (which we can celebrate if we so desire) but of Christianity itself into his or her personal space. If no one else writes such a letter, I guess this one will have to do.
Meanwhile, Friday’s Ted Rall column was chopped off halfway through. It may have left the impression that Mr. Rall is fixated on Ms. Coulter. In fact, she was just one of the three pro-war (that would be the real war) pundits he discussed before concluding his piece with a writer he favorably profiled.
Here’s another friend of ash’s replying to a syndicated column, the thrust of which was that since atheism has been the self-identification of political figures who happened to be dictators or tyrants, the philosophy itself must suffer from guilt by association:
Disagrees with Kristof on atheists
I was most disappointed to read Nicholas Kristof's Dec. 5 column condemning vocal atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.
Fortunately, since both of them are best-selling authors, it seems that most Americans don’t agree with Kristof. Not everyone thinks that unpopular opinions should be held in silence. Kristof goes so far as to call these men dogmatic. But, in fact, the only position these men hold without compromise is this: Every belief must be justified by reason before it can be used as a basis for public action.
It is acceptable, if undesirable, to hold unjustified beliefs privately, but such beliefs must not be imposed on others besides oneself. That way lies tyranny. It is just such tyrannical ambitions on the part of the religious right that Harris and Dawkins are fighting. They do not wish to see the West follow the same path to theocracy that has consumed the nations of the Middle East.
Kristof thinks that makes them obnoxious. I think that makes them brave.
ash not only agrees with the previous letter writer, she takes the conclusion a step further:
In her thought-provoking letter of December 12, [name withheld]’s last sentence makes her salient point particularly effective: actually, Atheism is quite brave.
While the knee-jerk reflex is to scoff at such a notion, that reaction only supports [name withheld]’s assertion. Faith in God (or some higher symbol or power) emanates from the more emotional, less analytical, more needy, less independent, more primitive, less sophisticated, more instinctive, less intellectual portion of the brain that never matured beyond reliance upon an Other for comfort and nurture. In that sense, dependence on God, and on a one-size-fits-all structure of concepts, beliefs, and rituals, to please one’s way into God’s good graces, is anything but brave. Therefore, its opposite – Atheism – is courageous.
Furthermore, Atheism gets its nefarious reputation not through its inherent nature but from those who cling to religion like fortunate infants suckle their mothers’ breasts. When the redundant “Godless” attaches, that negative adjective unleashes the threat of hell (to borrow from Christian parlance) to punish the infidels (to borrow from Islam) who had their chance – but sadly rejected it - during the stage of our human continuum known as earthly life.
Other religions get their revenge as well. How they do so is beyond both the scope of this letter and my expertise. The scorn heaped upon the intrepid non-believer – whether the refutation of God derives from careful consideration or a culmination of faith-exasperating experiences – comprises the dress rehearsal for the grand performance of our alleged ultimate fate. Bluntly stated, the price of not believing in God, and adhering to the “true” religion, is designed to be not worth one’s trouble.
Here, in the remainder of my word allotment, enters Agnosticism, that hybrid of faith and non-faith. As skeptical Agnosticism ponders the gap between allegiance to God and confidence in oneself for moral rectitude, it is not merely a tribute to hedging one’s bets. Agnosticism is also the opposite of Atheism in one important respect: it is as cowardly as Atheism is brave.
This next person would prefer we all shut up to get along:
Best to just tolerate Christmas cheer
In a recent letter to the editor, ash said she’d like to hear from a person of a minority faith or no faith on whether they are unhappy or aggravated when they hear America declared a Christian nation.
I’m not a Christian. I am an agnostic. And it doesn’t bother me a bit to hear my country described as Christian. Most people who live here are either Christians or have a Christian background. That’s the way it is, and is that so very bad? Christ was a good man; he had good ideas that will hurt nobody and help quite a few.
I’m at a loss to understand why proselytizing Christians bother Cormulley. There are worse things to be bothered about. Look, most people, when they think they’re onto something good, want to share it. That’s human nature and it’s rather nice. If you don’t want your lack of Christian faith to be a topic of discussion, don’t bring it up; if someone else does, politely say that you consider your spirituality to be a private matter. If that fails, walk away.
Christianity may not be my particular cup of tea, but it makes a lot of other people happy and brings them a degree of comfort. Can’t you just let them enjoy that? And while many bad things have been done by Christians, a lot more good things have been done and are being done, and that’s something we should all be happy about.
To those of you who feel excluded by the prevalence of Christmas cheer everywhere, well, live with it, for Pete’s sake. It delights so many other people; consider it your gift to your fellow citizens to at least not complain about it.
Merry Christmas.
not so ash:
From “America: love it or leave it” to “Perhaps you’d be happier moving to France” to “Quit your complaining and live with it.” I see a pattern.
Is it ash, or is this next commenter being a bit defensive?:
There is room for all under Christian tent
I like ash’s thoughtful contribution to State Journal-Register readers through her letters and occasional Saturday columns. I seldom agree with much of what she writes, but it wouldn’t be as fun to read if I did.
Her paragraph about Christians’ weakness - presuming from her text that she sees it as a weakness - because of our faith in God (or the much more politically correct “higher power”) begs for a response.
It is not worth addressing the assertions of immaturity, dependence, non-intellectual and excessive neediness she references because they are simply not accurate. Most Christians, and there are certainly exceptions just as there might be for atheists or agnostics, are quite mature, very intellectually curious and perhaps the least needy people you’ll meet.
Try doing my wife’s Bible study one week and you’ll see that the analytical, sophisticated and intellectual descriptors are far from accurate. Christians pray for atheists to join them in heaven because it’s a pretty cool place!
Real Christianity is the least “one-size-fits-all” structure possible. We accept anyone, pray for everyone and there is room for all. You are not forced to make the decision to accept Christ. Christians also know that you cannot please your way to heaven or into God’s good graces, so perhaps it is braver than acknowledged?
Finally, having made her positions on Christmas, Christianity, other religions, and no other religions known, ash concludes with a conciliatory tone:
Much appreciation to those who wrote out of concern for my mortal soul, and for having the good judgment to express it less bluntly than I just did.
While my persecuted Russian Jewish immigrant grandparents grouse in their graves, my parents remind that debating religion is ultimately futile, and my half-Christian children shrug, my Agnostic self values the sentiment.
Return to the previous paragraph for the intended target of my screed on Atheism and Deism (the unspecialized belief in God), which may form the basis of any number of organized faiths. While I maintain that, by definition, any structure of beliefs relying on an outside higher power for direction and support is dependent in nature, the mischief maker in that letter was Agnosticism. I repeat: I am an Agnostic. I was cryptic before; I state it outright here. I am the Agnostic; I am the coward.
I also acknowledge that the truth about life and life after death is indeterminable. As far as my limited brain can imagine (and because I reject the premise that God dictates holy books), those who get it right do so by fortunate coincidence. Since we all learn the truth eventually, I choose not to dwell on it meanwhile.
As for Christmas, as we speak sits a miniature artificial tree on my kitchen table ( in alternate years, it also fits on a stereo speaker), with generic green and red balls barely covering the side not pressed against the wall, which I bought with my (lapsed) Christian loved one upon uniting our households twelve years ago. As the blinking lights obscure its homeliness, the two whole presents (so far) under it ensure we will actually observe the occasion. I do wish a Merry Christmas to all who celebrate, and even to several who don’t.
Uh oh. While ash expected the above to end the discussion, particularly coming as it did as Christmas arrived, apparently the editorial page of her newspaper had other designs. Behold the following in all its Supernatural glory:
The precious gift of supernatural faith
As a moral theologian, I must strongly agree with ash, who contends that atheism can be thought to be brave, though I might prefer the word foolhardy. It takes a foolhardy person to stand against more than 99,99999 percent of all of the people on this planet, past, present and future who from time immemorial have believed in, served, loved and worshiped a Supreme Being.
It takes almost psychotic bravery to condemn this extremely large group who pray to God and firmly expect eternal life with him by insisting that their “faith in God or some kind of symbol or power emanates from the more emotional less analytic, more needy, less independent etc, etc.” Why is it that one or a small number of people are convinced that they are right and the rest of us are tragically wrong?
Many years ago, when I was studying the various proofs for the existence of a personal God, I came across the following thought-provoking statement.
• If there is no God, and I don’t believe, I lose nothing.
• If there is no God, and I do believe, I lose nothing.
• If there is a God and I don’t believe, I lose everything.
But, if there is a God and I do believe, I gain everything.
While there is no proof for the existence of God that is so compelling that no person could possibly deny it, there are proofs from Scripture, nature, psychology and theology that are extremely reasonable and do strengthen our faith in God. The following is one of them.
Every human being, even atheists, has a deep-seated desire to be permanently, perfectly happy. But he soon realizes that permanent, perfect happiness cannot be attained in this life, so what is the value of this craving if it can never be attained?
The source of this urge - materialistic evolution or God - is cruel and unjust if there is not someone or some place where our deep wish can be achieved. Evolution can’t do it, so the only one who can provide it is God and the only place is in heaven where there is life after death.
I beg every reader of this letter who is a person of faith to pray for ash, asking God to give her and all atheists and agnostics the precious gift of supernatural faith.
Thus was ash dragged back into the controversy, she can only hope for the very last time until Christmas reappears on next year's horizon:
While not a Bible expert, I wouldn’t be surprised to find a passage cautioning against arrogant condescension toward fellow sinners. While not a minister, I do feel comfortable engaging in a debate more about analysis than religion.
While God is ostensibly a philosophical conversation, the Beardstown reverend’s purpose in defending faith in God is transparent. For that reason, the discussion involves Psychology, which is MY domain. To wit:
“It takes almost psychotic bravery to condemn this very large group…” of believers. Who is the condemnor, and who the condemned? I condemn no group, large or small (though I note the size of the group is irrelevant) but have been condemned with an ultimatum – accept God or else – by the believers.
That’s classic projection (ascribing one’s motives to another). A blatant example of transference is the reverend’s characterization of God, revealed by implication in the understated threat: “If there is a God and I don’t believe, I lose everything.” Oh really? So I may interpret Official God as petty, spiteful, vengeful, vindictive, and, frankly, possessed of human shortcomings to deny me entrance to His almighty kingdom for failing to pay homage to Him, hopefully in the manner the reverend prescribes? To understand that God displays the same inadmirable behavior as those who worship Him?
Don’t get me started on the letter’s two contradictory paragraphs (is there proof of God or isn’t there?), hardly persuasive or impressive to God’s doubters. On the contrary, they merely rationalize a foregone conclusion:
God must exist, or who am I?
No clergyperson is endowed with special insight allowing him to distinguish agnostics who pray from those who don’t, the former absolutely not an oxymoron. (And yes, I was aware that some religions encourage prayer on behalf of The Heathens; when The Heathens find that offensive, consider yourself warned.) I assure anyone who cares that if I do pray, it’s not to the God of an organized faith. Having become acquainted with its notion of a retaliatory God, I surely never will.
ash's friend supports the sentiment with her knowledge of religion:
Dear Editor: Just as, I believe, most readers are weary of the smoking ban arguments that have gone back and forth I think, too, that most are tired of the letters about religious beliefs or lack thereof. Worse, in this season of "peace and goodwill" I've noted repeated letters from people acting like schoolyard bullies picking on one single writer.
Most Christians are familiar with the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus tells followers "...when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father..." and he also admonishes them not to be "hypocrites...that they may be seen of men." For believers, this is the greatest of Jesus' messages. So why aren't folks practicing humility (or charity, or just plain kindness) instead of being vainglorious? Like all bullies, they seem to be showing off for their cohorts ("being seen by men") by shouting, “Nah! Nah! I’m better than you! I’m going to heaven; you’re not.”
Historians report that Jesus was a kind, charitable man. Some believe his message (although I'm absolutely certain it's not “more than 99.99999% of all people on this planet, past, present and future”). Some believe messages from other prophets, or gurus, or sun gods, or TV scam artists who don’t practice what they preach. Some don't believe any of it. And some reserve the right to believe what they want and discard other beliefs (66% of all people currently living on this planet are listed as non-Christians, and undoubtedly that percentage is way, way higher when we factor in all people who have lived on this planet from the beginning to the time Jesus began his ministry, roughly 1973 years ago).
Regardless of our beliefs – or especially because of them - none of us should be harassing a single writer for speaking out about "the reason for the season" which is how this all started, folks. Remember? Christmas is over. Stop beating a dead horse!