Has it come to this...?

[Sapper6]

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of any and/or all holidays occurring before, after, during or near the winter solstice, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only "America" in the western hemisphere), and without regard to the race, color, creed, age, sex, physical ability, veterans status, religious faith, or sexual preference of the wished.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where taxed or prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and such warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

lol - no. I certainly hope not, at least!

 

[Cryozombie]

I can think of a few people who would prefer it if it had come to that, yes.

 

[kenpo tiger]

I don't think so...

 

[GAB]

Happy New Year to you also.

No strings attached.

Regards, Gary

 

[Phoenix44]

Huh?

 

[Zepp]

Sapper, I'm suing you!

(Happy New Year.)

 

[Simon Curran]

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of any and/or all holidays occurring before, after, during or near the winter solstice, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only "America" in the western hemisphere), and without regard to the race, color, creed, age, sex, physical ability, veterans status, religious faith, or sexual preference of the wished.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where taxed or prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and such warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

OK I hav absolutely no idea what you are on about, but happy new year???

 

[raedyn]

Cute, Sapper. Cheers and "season's greetings". Lol.

 

[Tgace]

Huh?

Come on! You really dont get it?

 

[Fightback2]

Good grief! What a mouthful. I hope it hasn't come to that but we're unfortunately getting close.

Since I'm such a big risk taker - Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

 

[mj_lover]

:uhyeah: merry Christmas and happy new year to y'all as well. I sure hope nobody pulls one of those long thingys in ernst....

seriously, the holiday IS Christmas, i checked the calander. I see no reason for people to take offence to it.

 

[Gin-Gin]

:lol: I hope not, either. Happy Holidays to you!

 

[The Prof]

Thanks, this brought a smile to my face.

 

[rmcrobertson]

One would be interested to see any citation of some actual writing or statements by the imagined horde of the PC left--anything comparable to the stuff cited in this article?


December 20, 2004

"The True Spirit of Xmas:
How 4/5 of the country became an oppressed minority"
Julian Sanchez

It's a Christmas tradition as venerable as mistletoe and caroling: As the days grow shorter, conservative activists claiming to speak for American Christendom raise their voices, not for a rousing round of "Good King Wenceslaus," but to complain that the roughly 75 to 80 percent of Americans who profess allegiance to some denomination or another of Christianity constitute a cruelly oppressed minority.

The kvetching is especially loud this year, with a spate of stories chronicling the outrage over a particularly insidious form of anti-Christian bigotry: the Satanic phrase "happy holidays."

National Review's John Derbyshire reports bristling at these two seemingly innocuous words with the sort of fascinated intensity he normally reserves for buggery. There's even a Committee to Save Merry Christmas, urging a boycott of stores that spit on Christians by deploying such bigoted phrases as "happy holidays" or "season's greetings." And in case you thought those phrases were, in our increasingly pluralistic society, just nice ways of creating a festive atmosphere without seeming to exclude the folks celebrating, you know, those other holidays happening around this time, CNN's Lou Dobbs shakes his jowls to remind you that those phrases have "excluded everyone who is celebrating Christmas" (which is apparently neither happy nor a holiday). The Christian Law Association has released a vague list of horror stories under the rhetorical headline: "Has Christmas Become Illegal in America?"

But "Happy Holidays" is just a skirmish in the Axis of Atheism's total war to annihilate Christmas. When the Target chain opted not to make a special exemption for the Salvation Army from its general ban on solicitation, it was tarred as not merely Scrooge-like, but anti-Christian, and deserving of a boycott. Newsweek is ineptly slagged for running an extremely mild piece to the effect that some scholars doubt whether various aspects of the biblical Christmas story could be historically accurate. Even the neutral-sounding phrase "winter break" for the vacation weeks students of various religions are given evokes the specter of the lion pits. If your media diet is largely constrained to Fox News and The Washington Times, it may seem that Bill O'Reilly stands all but alone in having a good word for the holiday amid an "anti-Christmas jihad."

While unusually visible this year, the panic over a War on Christmas is part of a more general persecution complex shared by some conservative Christians, which seems at least as strange as the minority-party style rage evidenced at this summer's Republican National Convention by people who now control every branch of government. While Catholic League honcho William Donohue targeted an old favorite when he complained on MSNBC that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular," the favored villain these days appears to be secularism itself—particularly odd in the context of the Christmas issue, since most of those other "happy holidays" are also religious.

Doubtless the faithful face many burdens, but it's probably worth recalling, for perspective's sake, the (almost certainly accurately) conventional wisdom that an open atheist could not be elected to national political office. George Bush the First may not have been quite as voluble about his faith as his prodigal son, but nevertheless he was dissuaded by neither realpolitik nor etiquette from telling one reporter: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."

In order to pull off the sort of grab at victim status conservatives used to deride as a tactic of the left, self-appointed defenders of the faith draw from a cornucopia of bogus anecdotes about oppression. A conservative cause celebre was born when Reuters ran a story under the headline "Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School" about a teacher forbidden to use that document in classes on the grounds that it mentioned God. It sounds outrageous...and would be, if it were remotely true. It is, of course, not true: The Declaration appears in the school's standard textbooks and hangs on classroom walls. The school's principal, rather, insisted on pre-approving the handouts of a single teacher who had long generated complaints from parents because he was using his American History lessons as a pretext from indoctrination—a teacher who, as one student put it, "talks about Jesus 100 times a day." Judging by this Easter assignment and various other handouts, including fabricated quotations from Founding Fathers on the topic of religion, the concern was well motivated.

Of course, with activists constantly carping that wicked secular humanists have managed to outlaw all religious speech in public schools, it's not terribly surprising that in some instances school administrators who lack a particularly subtle grasp of Supreme Court jurisprudence begin to believe just that and overreach. Seldom mentioned when these cases are cited is the speed with which they tend to be resolved when parents—again, still overwhelmingly Christian in most of the country—get wind of them. Sean Hannity continued to harp on a story about a school removing Christmas music from a student concert well after the rapid reversal of that decision.

Even when genuine cases of religious speech's being squelched lead to a more prolonged battle, the narrative favored by the martyrs manqué doesn't always quite fit. When a Massachusetts high school attempted to punish Bible club members for distributing candy canes with religious messages affixed, Rev. Jerry Falwell justly fumed, but unjustly added: "And yes, students have just as much right to speak on religious topics as they do on secular topics— no matter what the ACLU might propagate." The hitch is that the ACLU successfully defended those very students. One wonders what Falwell makes of the fact that early puritans, regarding Christmas as too pagan and too papist (it's Christ's mass after all), banned its celebration, and that a few contemporary Christians remain sympathetic to that view.

Sometimes, of course, there's a straightforward and cynical explanation of persecution mania. During initial coverage of the murder of Matthew Shepard, widely regarded as an anti-gay hate crime, Today anchor Katie Couric asked a guest to comment on the hypothesis, advanced by some gay activists, that the anti-gay rhetoric of groups like Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition may have helped to create an atmosphere in which such attacks were more likely. In the wake of recent reporting questioning whether homophobia was the real motive for the murder, Focus on the Family president Don Hodel demanded an apology, seeing Couric's question as evidence of her "anti-Christian agenda." The point of this rhetorical sleight-of-handis transparent enough: Complaining that your group and your actions have been attacked wins less sympathy and fewer allies than declaring that our shared identity is under assault.

To some extent, the feeling of marginalization may be the result of the very real process of cultural fragmentation. There is probably now as rich and varied a marketplace of Christian media—from Veggie Tales cartoons to the apocalyptic fantasy of the Left Behind series and its spinoffs—as there's ever been. But it's perceived as niche culture, in large part because cultural products are increasingly tailored to niches. As a recent New York Times op-ed notes: "Plain-vanilla Top 40, once the chief vehicle for hit songs, is now the format for only 5 percent of the nation's 10,000-plus stations." A few crossover hits notwithstanding, a young singer who wants to incorporate her faith into her music is now likely to narrowcast to a Christian rock audience because, well, she can. (One apparent exception is hip hop, where alongside lyrical fare that famously drives conservatives to apoplexy, one also finds the likes of the acronymic "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth" by Wu-Tang Clan's GZA.)

What remains of the mainstream, meanwhile, steers clear of potentially divisive religious themes, not just because American society is gradually becoming more pluralistic in terms of the proportion of Christians to devotees of other faiths, or of none, but because the idea of a monolithic Christian audience is a lot of nonsense, however useful it is to demagogues. Many believers, after all, don't much care for the Left Behind books. Critics of the "Anti Christian Lawyers Union," for that matter, tend to forget that the lead plaintiffs in Abington School District v. Schempp, which barred schools from conducting morning Bible readings, were Unitarians who resented the school's usurpation of their prerogative to teach their children about the Bible in their own way.

So are we really seeing an unprecedented wave of hostility toward either Christmas or Christianity? Or is it, rather, that the waning of the cultural hegemony to which some Christians have come to feel entitled is perceived as an attack? Many of the most loudly trumpeted complaints in this vein are, after all, complaints about the absence of special treatment: no special spot for the Ten Commandments in the courthouse rotunda; no pride of place for Christmas among those happy winter holidays; no exceptions for the Christian charity.

Since "special rights" has been a term of aspersion among conservatives for decades, would-be theocrats have at least the decency to be too ashamed to demand them explicitly. Instead, they've learned the power of the victim narrative, of framing the debate to cast themselves as underdogs. Rather than attempting to entrench their values, demagogues purport to be playing defense against a plot to "purge religion from the public square," trading on the same ambiguity in the word "public" that has eased the acceptance of ever more regulation of privately owned establishments that are open to the public, and allowed for the metastasis of the term "public health," which now apparently covers not just infectious disease control or mosquito abatement, but smoking and obesity. Since the battle is a reactive one against the undifferentiated forces of anti-Christian bigotry, such nice distinctions as that between a business that fails to cater to its customers and an arm of the state adhering to strict neutrality can be dispensed with. More importantly, moderate Christians with no desire to impose their faith on others might be convinced to support a re-Christianization of public life on the premise that they'd only be defending themselves against marauding secularists.

The stratagem is so perverse as to be almost admirable: Take a holiday associated with sentiments like peace and goodwill, mix in some well-intentioned attempts to acknowledge it in an inclusive way suited to a pluralistic society, and then use the combination to generate fear, divisiveness, and high ratings. But whether we're impressed or appalled by that cynical ploy, whether we're gearing up for Christmas dinner or just a post-Ramadan pig-out, we can all breathe a little easier knowing that the anti-Christmas "jihad" is no more real (sorry kids) than Santa Claus. Happy holidays.

Julian Sanchez is "Reason's" Assistant Editor. He lives in Washington, D.C.

The article, and its attendant citation, can be tracked down easily at the "Reason," magazine's website. The claims may be traced; the examples, the names, the quotes, verified. Again, one should like to see an actual example, or some citation, to provide equivalent support for the "letter," on which this thread rests.

 

[modarnis]

Again, one should like to see an actual example, or some citation, to provide equivalent support for the "letter," on which this thread rests.

Why?? I think the author of the letter was joking.

 

[Cryozombie]

Why?? I think the author of the letter was joking.

Becuase I think a few people who feel its the most appropriate sentiment are getting offended that someone WOULD treat it as a joke.

 

[GAB]

Becuase I think a few people who feel its the most appropriate sentiment are getting offended that someone WOULD treat it as a joke.

Hi all,

The sooner they leave the planet, the sooner they will meet this maker, maybe the "Jihad" are just trying to help them out.
See, they are not very appreciative, goes to prove you can't please everyone.

That above line is a reply just to show that we are in a country where we can speak our mind and are very lucky! Plus it can be taken as ment.

Then there are the ones that will say "fu** um if they can't take a joke...:2xBird2: .

Are they in the area that, when the right meets the left we have Chaos, to answer that you will have to read Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan...Or you could read Louis J. Halle...

Happy Holiday...

Regards, Gary

 

[ghostdog2]

" Happy Holidays" is that sort of "one size fits all" greeting that serves well the timid soul who is more afraid of saying something inappropriate than he is about wishing anyone a Happy anything
It seves as a sterile social convention between people who don't know each other well. Sort of like the universal " Ms. " instead of "Miss" or "Mrs." used when the adressee is someone you don't really know and don't want to offend. Contrived but serviceable. Friends know what holiday it is they and you are celebrating and will be warmed, not put off, by Happy New Year.

 

[rmcrobertson]

The correct form of address for people you don't know is to use their professional title, if possible, or to use, "Mr.," or, "Ms." That way, you can talk to them without making presumptuous judgments about whether or not they're virgins--which is what "Miss," vs. "Mrs." denotes.

Similarly, "Happy Holidays," is simply a way of wishing someone well, without raising the question of their beliefs, which is none of your business anyway.

It's just good manners; nothing terribly pc about it--though it is good to see that right-wing pc is still in full swing, making up statements for the rest of us, then claiming that it's just terrible that liberal types talk this way.

One would like to see/hear actual examples of somebody being offended by, "Merry Christmas," outside of Michael Savage's imagination, that is.