WASHINGTON — Christmas is over, and fortunately no one was hurt. Every year it seems the holiday becomes more divisive, which seems odd. More than 80% of our fellow Americans consider the holiday a holy day, the day on which Jesus was born. It is supposed to be a time of peace. Yet for many years now it has become a time for wrangling over what decorative symbols are allowed in what public settings.
I have followed these disputes assiduously and watched an ever wider array of Christmas decorations become malum prohibitum. At first it was the nativity scene, the traditional envisagement of the site of Jesus’ birth: a straw-strewn stable, Mary and Joseph looking prayerfully into a primitive crib wherein the divine infant lies, face beaming out, hands raised up, palms upward. There are barnyard animals about. Possibly an angel is overhead, and the shepherds and three kings mentioned in Scripture have arrived.
I actually doubt that more than a tiny minority of non-Christians found these scenes irritating or alarming. Actually — and bearing in mind the almost limitless capacity of mankind to complain — I would guess that for every non-Christian who took offense at a nativity scene there were Christians too who took offense. For instance, there might be Christian pedants offended by historical inaccuracies in the scene. There might also be an occasional Christian siding with the separation-of-Church-and-state rigorists and equally fearful that a nativity scene on public property puts the nation on a slippery slope to theocracy. As a consequence of all these complainants the once-unexceptional nativity scene has become X-rated.
Other traditional Christmas decorations are on the way out too, though their religious content is often nil. We can all understand why angels might be controversial. But increasingly Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer has been the subject of disputes and Santa Claus too. I was in Chicago, Illinois, a week or two before Christmas and found that these time-honored Christmas symbols have been replaced by tin soldiers, Raggedy Ann dolls, and mysterious conical-shaped trees covered with colored lights. In three days I saw not one Rudolph and only an occasional Santa. Yet I spied an infinitude of these idiotic trees, Raggedy Ann dolls, and tin soldiers. Ever the provocateur, I feigned mild indignation over a squad of tin soldiers deployed in the lobby of a posh hotel. The concierge deferred to me immediately, tremulous with alarm. I suspect he feared that I might be a member of America’s powerful anti-war movement, ready to charge him with militarizing “the holidays.”
Evidence of how controversial Christmas has become can be seen by comparing two votes in the House of Representatives, the October vote on Ramadan and the December vote on Christmas. The House resolution on Ramadan sailed through 376 to 0. The resolution on Christmas got 372 votes, but 9 Democrats opposed the measure, though they had earlier favored Ramadan. Ten Democrats denied the resolution by only voting “present,” and 40 failed to vote either way. Possibly they were shopping.
Doubtless the opponents of Christmas are moved by various discrete motives. Some are bigots or cranks. Some are truly alarmed by Christian fervor in the dead of winter. To be sure, some probably do fear that signs of any religion will put us on a slippery slope to theocracy. But I also see another motive, a motive that has animated the most egregious public nuisances at large in recent American history, the liberal activist.
The liberal activist aspires to be an agent of “Progress.” In fact, the liberal activist, whether male or female, often calls himself a Progressive. Yet through the years you will spot no coherent system of political values motivating liberal reforms. Sometimes the liberals might be motivated by liberty or equality or fraternity, but sometimes they are not. They may be against censorship, but sometimes dirty words offend the feminists among them and ethnic slurs arouse other of their co-conspirators.
There is, however, one political value that can be discerned motivating every one of their legendary reforms, from the ambitious (world peace) to the trivial (the criminalization of trans fats). That value is to disturb one’s neighbor, to disturb the peace. In all civilized criminal codes such behavior constitutes a misdemeanor. Yet it is at the heart of the liberal project.
Disturbing the peace is, I believe, at the heart of rendering Christmas controversial. Surely disturbing the peace was the motive on the House floor when Ramadan and Christmas came to a vote. All the opponents of Christmas were liberals. Their adolescent complaint denies all Americans the opportunity to contemplate peacefully what is conceivably Western civilization’s greatest event.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?