Christmas without Christ? Huh?

[Mr Nick]

Follow up to the previous question

I have responded to Marc's question in a PM. If others would like to discuss, please PM me. I'm open to discussion but have no desire to enter into divisive debates that detract from the general feelings of goodwill associated with our winter holiday festivities. As a general rule, Christmas time causes most of us to reflect on family, friends and pleasant memories of times past and the desire to repeat the same. Have a great time with those you love and be sure to let them all know how much you care for them!

 

[carebear]

Well said Mr. Nick.

As always, I am pleasantly surprised (though by now I shouldn't be, it's so common) at how "undivisive" even heartfelt disagreements on FL can be.

If only the physical communities could learn a lesson from Loungers...

 

[jamespowers]

December 6, 2006

DIVERSITY HOAX EXPOSED

Catholic League president Bill Donohue released the following statement today on the Christmas wars:

“The secular crusaders who want to neuter Christmas say ad nauseam that the reason why we have to give more attention to holidays other than Christmas is due to the increasingly diverse composition of our nation and the world. But it is a hoax: the evidence is just the opposite.

“According to Boston University professor Stephen Prothero, America now has more Christians than any other nation in history (Christian Science Monitor, 12-23-03). ‘In terms of religious background,’ writes Hoover Institution scholar Dinesh D’Souza, ‘America is no more diverse today than it was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries’ (The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11). Indeed, Penn State professor Philip Jenkins maintains that the U.S. is becoming more Christian (The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity). As for the world’s religious population, we are also becoming less diverse: in 1900, 50 percent of the world was either Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Hindu; in 2000, these groups constituted 64 percent, in 2025 they are projected to make up 70 percent (Shah and Duffy, “Why God is Winning,” Foreign Policy, 7-1-06).

“Hanukkah, which is a minor holiday in the Jewish calendar, is not being celebrated today more than ever before because there are more Jews: in fact, only 1 percent of America is Jewish (Newsweek, 9-5-05); in 1955, the figure was 4 percent (Will Herberg, Protestant, Catholic, Jew). Nor are we celebrating Kwanzaa more than ever before because African Americans have rallied to this African holiday: only 2 percent of Americans, or about 15 percent of blacks, celebrate the holiday (Fox News Poll, 12-9-03); and Kwanzaa has nothing to do with Africa—it was invented in 1966 by an ex-con (Sam Correnga).

“The diversity hoax is being sold as a rationale to nullify Christmas. It’s also because the multicultural industry is big business.”

 

[Michaelson]

Well, I know for a fact that it's confusing the HECK out of the folks out in the hinderlands.

I drove up backroads through Kentucky last weekend to visit my folks in Ohio, and saw a very elaborate yard display that, for all it's colorful nature, was an excellent demonstration of the confusion of the owner. There was a very nicely detailed manger scene with Mary, Joseph and the Baby Jesus, surounded by the 3 wisemen and the animals, while up on the roof of the manger was a stout and jolly Santa Claus aboard his sleigh, with all his reindeer in a row....behind the manger scene was Rudolf the Rednose reindeer, all blown up and glowing brightly in the night, while ANOTHER large blow up decoration of Santa Claus riding a Harley motorocycle (complete with motorcycle noise to the song 'Jingle Bells' playing in the background. Seriously. We stopped to stare at the display and heard it! ) completed the scene on the OTHER side of the Holy family.

So, I guess the message got lost somewhere in all the marketing over the years.[huh]

Regard! Michaelson

 

[carebear]

As for the world’s religious population, we are also becoming less diverse: in 1900, 50 percent of the world was either Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Hindu; in 2000, these groups constituted 64 percent, in 2025 they are projected to make up 70 percent (Shah and Duffy, “Why God is Winning,” Foreign Policy, 7-1-06).

Well, duh.

Critical thinking time.

In 1900 much of the world was still tribal/pagan, or was Buddhist, a major religion (China anyone?) not represented in his list as a distinct group. Now, for the most part, the "non-aligned" pagans have been at least superficially prosletyzed into one of the major religious groups. However, most of those areas, for a variety of reasons, didn't become predominantly Christian, they became one of the other religions.

Now look at the rates of population growth in India (primarily Hindu/Muslim/Buddhist), China (I'm betting the projected 2025 30% is mostly the Chinese Buddhist "other") and other predominantly or significantly Muslim countries vs. North America, Europe and the Christian populations in other, more polyglot, countries. That ratio I know is high. Christians aren't breeding as fast on the whole and much of the evangelical effort is just changing teams within Christendom and it's adjuncts, not adding new members. The fact that Hindus and Muslims still are regularly killed for conversion keeps those numbers low.

I would like to see his numbers on what percentage, worldwide, of that 64% are Christian versus what percentage were in 1900 and what are projected in 2025. I bet it's smaller. I would guess the omission of Buddhism was a deliberate omission on a technicality, "Buddha" is not a god. Why the omission? Because it would show that most of the world is neither Christian (nor even monotheistic) and doesn't appear to be headed that way except for the growth of Islam.

If so, then religious "Christmas" at least is not gaining ground worldwide. I'll have to check his "in the US" figures as well but his cites seem ok.

 

[Viola]

I imagine that the US gain of Muslim population is largely balanced by the collapse of the Jewish population, however I'll wager that the overall Islamic population of the US has doubled a few times since the '50s.

 

[Weston]

*sigh* Yes, I understand. (Except where you seem to equate death by crucifixion with birth in a "smelly stable" to a poor couple. Can the two situations even be considered comparable?)

Your statements beg the question: would you, Mr. Nick, have a problem with a sculpture showing the baby Jesus nailed to a cross? After all, wouldn't such a depiction be consistent with your point? And if not, why not?


.

Mr. Nick, you took the words right out of my mouth. Thanks!

Marc, I believe this thought to be a non-sequitur. The symbols of Christianity represent real events, not theoretical ideas. Christ was crucified as a man, not a child. A crucified baby would just be an image for shock value, not a real event that contains meanings for those following Christ. We must stick with the symbols given.

However, as you rightly point out, the cross was a ghastly and horrible affair for Jesus. But its meaning is bound up in pain, redemption, love and more. It's a complicated event, and the Nativity is part of it. As pastors in my denomination are apt to say, if we see the cradle without the cross, we're just looking at a cute baby, not a reality with meaning for us.

I hope that made some sense. I have finals this and next week and it's been rather vexing.

 

[Weston]

Weston, i really appreciate your calming insight in this thread. Thanks.

Ok, posting twice in a row, now I look full of myself! LOL

Thanks for your kind words Olive, I wanted you to know I saw them.

Also – Vermifuge: most disturbing avatar ever. Is that you?

 

[jamespowers]

Well, duh.

Critical thinking time.

In 1900 much of the world was still tribal/pagan, or was Buddhist, a major religion (China anyone?) not represented in his list as a distinct group. Now, for the most part, the "non-aligned" pagans have been at least superficially prosletyzed into one of the major religious groups. However, most of those areas, for a variety of reasons, didn't become predominantly Christian, they became one of the other religions.

Now look at the rates of population growth in India (primarily Hindu/Muslim/Buddhist), China (I'm betting the projected 2025 30% is mostly the Chinese Buddhist "other") and other predominantly or significantly Muslim countries vs. North America, Europe and the Christian populations in other, more polyglot, countries. That ratio I know is high. Christians aren't breeding as fast on the whole and much of the evangelical effort is just changing teams within Christendom and it's adjuncts, not adding new members. The fact that Hindus and Muslims still are regularly killed for conversion keeps those numbers low.

I would like to see his numbers on what percentage, worldwide, of that 64% are Christian versus what percentage were in 1900 and what are projected in 2025. I bet it's smaller. I would guess the omission of Buddhism was a deliberate omission on a technicality, "Buddha" is not a god. Why the omission? Because it would show that most of the world is neither Christian (nor even monotheistic) and doesn't appear to be headed that way except for the growth of Islam.

If so, then religious "Christmas" at least is not gaining ground worldwide. I'll have to check his "in the US" figures as well but his cites seem ok.

Well, lets see:
The CIA World Facts book says:
China:
Daoist (Taoist), Buddhist, Christian 3%-4%, Muslim 1%-2%
Church attendance: 9%

India:
Hindu 80.5%, Muslim 13.4%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.1% (2001 census)

United States:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)

There just aren't that many religious people in China so counting them in anyway as to a total of religious people just doesn't work. My father-in-law lives there. Any religion is a small part of their lives because it is frowned upon.

Regards,

J

 

[carebear]

Well, lets see:
The CIA World Facts book says:
China:
Daoist (Taoist), Buddhist, Christian 3%-4%, Muslim 1%-2%
Church attendance: 9%

India:
Hindu 80.5%, Muslim 13.4%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.1% (2001 census)

United States:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)

There just aren't that many religious people in China so counting them in anyway as to a total of religious people just doesn't work. My father-in-law lives there. Any religion is a small part of their lives because it is frowned upon.

Regards,

J

Thanks James.

Even if we replace the breeding Chinese Buddhists with breeding Chinese athiests, that still doesn't make monotheism on the upswing except for Islam.

I suppose the Chinese could get into secular Christmas but that's not really a win either.

Except for Hallmark and all those toy manufacturers... located in China.

 

[John in Covina]

In China where religion is frowned upon or even imprisioned, like the (spelling Foal lung gong(?) You can expect there to be serious UNDER reporting of the number of religous people. There is an underground religious population that follow their religion in secret.

 

[Avalon]

In China where religion is frowned upon or even imprisioned, like the (spelling Foal lung gong(?)

For more information:

Falun Gong

 

[Roger]

Irving Berlins White Christmas

Imagine that? [huh]

 

[jamespowers]

In China where religion is frowned upon or even imprisioned, like the (spelling Foal lung gong(?) You can expect there to be serious UNDER reporting of the number of religous people. There is an underground religious population that follow their religion in secret.

The Falun Gong are not a religion they are a group of people that get together to meditate really. It is their belief that for the mind to be free the boday has to be as well that gets them in hot water with the Communists.

Regards,

J

P.S. Yeah, we had a local thing over them. Not even worth debating.

 

[Pilgrim]

Nationality is an idea, one among many. A nation's flag represents this idea. Would you suggest, then, that the American flag not be shown in any display or public exhibition, other than that which is government-sponsored? (I'm not judging you; I'm trying to understand your line of reasoning.)
.

Nationality is not (or IMO should not) be an issue when you're in country X. If you go to a sporting contest, flags representing all the countries of all the spectators are not flown; that of the host county is flown. When the sporting contest is held in the U.S., of course it is appropriate for the U.S. flag to be flown. Same for most other events.

If we in the U.S. are hosting an event with international participation, then it's appropriate for the visitors to display their flags according to established protocol. Such protocols are well-known.

When it comes to religious faith, there are no simple answers. There are a multitude of faiths. However, does that make it appropriate for EVERY religion to be represented in EVERY public display, on an on-demand basis? We certainly have opened the door to that potential in the past decade or two.

This is the dilemma that public officials face. It boils down to an argument that I would phrase as "Because there's public money behind this, you have to serve all of the people all of the time in all the ways that all the religions request." Balderdash. No action is possible under such demands. No action is not a realistic option. There has to be a practical alternative.

Here are points which I have in mind:

• Christmas is a religious holiday, and an important one for Christians.
• Christmas is also a secular holiday, and many people have no other regard for it other than its secular character.
• There are other religious holidays (especially Hannukah) around the same calendar dates.
• There has to be a point where the most common usage and context of the event takes precedence, and other usages and contexts take a back seat. There isn't room for 20 different displays in every window.
• An "All or None" approach ends up only with one possible decision: None.

I'm not unhappy with recent court decisions that Christmas displays can be considered secular in nature and that therefore, it is not required that other religions receive display space (the "All or None" option). We have that discussion going on here in Fort Collins in our downtown square, where there is a secular Christmas display and all religious displays have been omitted. A local restaurant on the square displays a Menorrah because the city will not.

Is this ideal? Probably not. But as long as all religious groups INSIST on having their display included if ANY display (secular or non-secular) is put up, then I think it's the only practical solution.

Let's not forget this: the U.S. has more citizens who have Christian religious affiliations than any other. If the U.S. Constitution didn't expressly protect freedom of religion, then a majority vote would probably end every discussion (other than in small regions where the characteristics are different) with a Yea for the Christian expression and a Nay for all other expressions.

Also, let me note that this is not a bad debate to have. In most countries, it would never happen.

 

[Elaina]

But it always goes the other way: my pagan friend is being forced to take down her Yule decorations in her yard because of people in her neighborhood voting that only "approved" displays are permitted, which includes blue lights for the Jewish folks, Christian symbols and nativity scenes for Christians, but precludes things like her sun wheel, the apples she hangs from her oak tree and roasting the pig on the spit in her backyard. (Items were specifically excluded from the thing she got.)

This is her yard: she's not telling her next door neighbor to take down his nativity scene. Or the woman across the street to remove the "reason for the season" lights. She's celebrating HER holiday (December 21st).

Everyone can get mad, upset, whatever and bring in the forming of our country: but it isn't really equal for all. She gets persecuted every holiday she celebrates because she's not what is the accepted norm.

But I have to ask: isn't this why we all ARE Americans in the first place? Because someone somewhere in our lineage wanted to be free from persecution and to believe what they want to believe? (I know my family this is indeed what happened from the dutch gypsies to the ones that came over on Plymouth rock. My history is weird, I know.)

Christ may be the "reason for the season" but I just shake my head because it seems every year at this time it becomes a pissing contest for who is right and whose holiday it really is. It's Christ's birth okay, but am not I mistaken that they figured out the man was an Aries anyway? (And Aries rock. I know. Just ask me.) Which makes Jesus' birthday in April. (I've also read some very convincing things using the Bible to make it September, but it still doesn't make it in December.)

But really, there should not be a Christmas tree in a Christian household because it's too pagan. There should not be a Santa for little kids to believe in because Christmas then becomes about Santa and not Jesus, there should not be an abundance of gifts (or really any at all, after all, do we give children gifts on anyone else's birthday?), there should not be a celebration outside of a recognization of it.

But that would ruin Christmas for a lot of people wouldn't it?

Doesn't the argument of what's allowed and what's not ALSO ruin the Holiday season for a lot of other people too?

I'm going to pipe down. I really don't care if you're Lutheran, first Church of Elvis, Pagan, Jewish or the Church of Monday Night Football. Just some things to think about really.

 

[Avalon]

That's incredibly unfair, Elaina. Has your friend talked to anyone about getting her Yule decorations on the "approved" list? (And, as an aside, it's always great to hear someone sticking up for Pagan rights. :eusa_clap )

Which makes Jesus' birthday in April

I've heard this theory too. Among other things, they determined it by the mention of "sheperds watching their flocks by night".

 

[carebear]

Elaina,

Did she sign the Neighborhood Association documents when she moved in or when it was formed? Do they form a binding contract? What are the penalties?

If she signed the contract without reading it and it contained those strictures or the potential for those strictures to be added, she made a mistake a while ago. If she read it and signed it knowing that was a potential issue...

If the strictures on displays were voted in (I assume they have to be voted) following the proper procedures of the Association which she was a voluntary signatory to, then that's the way it goes.

Unlike our Constitution, voluntary compacts like that are usually straight democracy with all its potential evils enshrined, including majority oppression of minorities. I'd look real close at the paperwork before I ever bought in an area with an empowered Association. If one tried to form around me I'd fight tooth and nail to get grandfathered out.

I hate mob rule, I'm the kind of guy the pitchfork wielding peasants end up coming for.

 

[Weston]

Elaina-

Can't agree with all you've said, but I can affirm you on one major issue:
Neighborhood associations are a tool of evil powers!

If you buy land and a house, and sweat to afford it, no totalitarian regime should EVER be allowed to tell you what you can and can't do inside of the laws of our country. I'd never be found celebrating Yule myself, but if I could help someone tweak the nose of a "Neighborhood Association", I'd be there in a heartbeat.

Don't get me started on dues! Gah, such pretentious nonsense!

 

[Elaina]

And now for a little humor...

Well she moved in last year like Dec. 1. She put up her yule decorations, they gave her all kinds of grief, then because she hadn't been there 6 months they changed it last year. So she signed it, then they changed it.

Somewhat confusing to me anyway. LOL, and it's okay if you don't agree with me. I know I'm right. (It's that Aries thing.)