![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Christmas and Chanukah
Cross-religion education is a good thing, and I think most people would welcome serious inquiries from people of different faiths if they want to know more (or even attend services or other rituals). I've certainly participated on both sides of that and seen no problems. But I think we should remember that our religions are separate; they have different emphases and that's ok. We don't have to agree, and we don't have to try to build a lowest common denominator.
To my Christian friends, I wish you the best in your season of holiness now under way, as I know you wish similar things for me during the high holy days and at other times. I'm not offended by your observance of your religion; you don't need to water it down. Besides, the dreidel song is really insipid; please don't feel obligated on my account.
(Mind, I would have a different reaction to celebrations in a setting that's supposed to be neutral, like a public school or a place of (secular) employment. But that's not what I'm talking about here.)
[1] Some do not see a problem with things like singing Messiah. We all draw the "worship" line in different places.
OK, I'm going to be completely different
Hold onto your hats, but I learned Christmas songs in Public School! Not only that, I learned the Menorah song at the same time! Oh my gosh! (I have curtailed saying "Oh my God" due to a very religiously strict person at work, but it seemed like a such little sacrifice to make someone happy.) And you know, if I had learned a little more a little earlier maybe that whole "asking for pepperoni on your pizza bagel at the Jewish deli" could have been avoided.
I'm just thinking that maybe we need to share our celebrations more, throughout the year. Maybe that would even lead to more understanding of each other and peace and harmony and good things.
Adam Sandler's Chanukah songs do make up for the dreidel song.
If you get a chance, listen to Dar William's "The Christians and the Pagans". It chokes me up just to think about the song.
I had recently created a song list on my iPod with all my spiritual music. I am greatly amused that I have representation of at least five different religions. But I must confess to having very little Jewish religious music. Any suggestions? (Boy, I came to the right place for that didn't I, Monica?)
One thing I must ask, why so many different spellings of Chanukah?!?
part 1
First off, let me clarify that I'm talking about public property and similar domains. Whatever my neighbors want to put on their lawn is fine with me so long as their sight-seers don't cause damage to my property. :-)
Ok, try to imagine being, say, a fairly traditional Muslim, who objects to human figures in art and especially naked women. Now suppose your Hindu boss puts out a huge statue of some naked Indian goddess. Do you think it's possible you might be a little uncomfortable having that looming over you all day at work? Even though your boss never intended to offend you?
I'm deliberately choosing extremes -- and running the risk that being neither Muslim nor Hindu I'm wrong in the details -- to try to separate this from our own religious reactions. It shouldn't matter whether we're talking about naked goddesses or big crosses, after all.
The first-order problem is the appearance of (or actual) endorsement -- proclaiming this place to be specifically for a particular religion. So to counter that, sometimes people will put up symbols of other religions alongside the objectionable ones, to show that they're multicultural. The problem with that -- the second-order problem -- is that it implies some degree of equivalence. (And the third-order problem is that you'll always leave someone out no matter how hard you try, because not everyone has a holiday on any given target date.)
Now if someone made a point of decorating for every holiday throughout the year, regardless of origin, that might be different. Maybe a good educational exercise for a school, even. But by paying attention to Chanukah while ignoring Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot, and for that matter Shabbat -- all much more important than Chanukah -- they help contribute to the "Chanukah is Jewish Christmas" myth. That doesn't harm me per se; it's just annoying, in the same way that liberals from red states resent the sweeping characterizations of their communities.
In addition, members of any majority -- religious, political, other -- have an extra duty to try to avoid tromping on the minorities. No one means to be rude, but the assumption that everyone around you is like you can create some awkward situations, particularly between non-equal folks (boss/employee, teacher/student, etc). I think refraining from decorating the workplace/school/courthouse is a prudent precaution in this area. It's not like you can't go wild with your house, place of worship, private meeting house, etc, after all.
Re: part 1
I would not mind having Muslim, Hindu, or Pagan symbols around. I would object to naked women only on the grounds that nudity is considered a no-no. Ew! you just grossed me out in thinking that my boss (who is Hindu) has a nude statue! I would even question whether a person should be offended by the human body, but that's probably good for a future discussion.
The devil may be in the details of this thought. Yes, it is too easy for someone to put in their own faith into the assumptions of presenting a religion. One would hope that someday we could get to a point where people could feel free to constructively criticize and both parties could come to a compromise without either getting offended. The respect of others is so key to the whole thing working out.
I just realized that maybe I am thinking more extremely than you mean. Putting up a huge cross is one thing, but what about Christmas lights? Or a Christmas tree (which we know comes from Pagan roots)? Or a Star of David?
But this whole thought gets back to my feeling about fundamentalism (of any religion, or even cultures for that matter). I think that people that think other people are bad just because they're different is evil incarnate.
Liberals from red states, huh? Nothing personal? *smile*
Re: part 1
Time for more hair-splitting, then. :-)
I think of one's cublicle as sort of an extension of personal space. I don't care if you put lights or even a little nativity scene in your cubicle, just as I don't care if you wear a big cross pendant. (You see that star in my userpic? It's a scan of a small necklace I wear every day.) But a cubicle is different from a display at the reception desk or the patio just outside the front door. That's where I see a potential problem -- and similarly in (public) schools, because classrooms are not the teachers' private space (like your cube) but rather public space (like the reception desk), and any public place in public buildings (like the courthouse).
I would not mind having Muslim, Hindu, or Pagan symbols around.
Because you come from a tradition that has no problem with such things. But imagine coming from a tradition that says gazing upon such things is sinful. I know such traditions exist. (Just to be clear, I don't think looking at these symbols is sinful. I'm made uncomfortable by the symbolism, not the symbol.) If such a person walks into your home or your cubicle it's his problem, but he should be able to walk into the public library without issues.
Ew! you just grossed me out in thinking that my boss (who is Hindu) has a nude statue!
Let me stress that I made that example up. I know that some Indian traditions include depictions of gods that are not always clothed. I don't know how that intersects with Hinduism, nor do I know anything about Hindu worship. Please don't hold anything against your boss on account of this hypothetical scenario.
I think that people that think other people are bad just because they're different is evil incarnate.
I don't think much of that idea either, but I don't think that's what we're talking about. Ok, concrete example... I've been to (a few) Christian masses; when I go I just sit there, observing but declining to participate. I'm perfectly respectful of those who are there to worship, but I won't rise for the gospel reading, kneel for the eucharist, say "amen" to the prayers, sing the songs, and so on. People have challenged me, saying things like "there's nothing objectionable in the lord's prayer so you can say that", but that's not the point. Even if I agreed with the sentiments, in that context it is an act of Christian worship, and that is an activity forbidden to me. So for me, Christian worship is a bad thing.
Does that make the people who do it bad people? Heavens no! I hope none of my Christian friends have the notion that I have such an opinion. I recognize that it is right for them, I enjoy their friendship, I like to learn about their traditions, and I even enjoy observing what they're comfortable sharing. But I'm an outsider; I'm not one of them. And I don't want to blur that line.
And I don't care if we're talking about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, pagan rites, or something else. The people are fine; the acts are fine for them; the acts are wrong for me.
Did I just make things clearer, or muddier?
Re: part 1
Let me stress that I made that example up. I know that some Indian traditions include depictions of gods that are not always clothed. I don't know how that intersects with Hinduism, nor do I know anything about Hindu worship. Please don't hold anything against your boss on account of this hypothetical scenario.
***
You would have to know my boss to really get the level of "Ew!" right. Now, a boss I had a few years ago that was also Hindu, I could see *him* doing that.
Re: part 1
Re: part 1
To give a related example (different, but in the same space):
I'm a moderately-active Freemason, and used to be moreso. Modern Masonry's attitude towards religion is studiedly ecumenical: members are required to be religious, but not required to be members of any specific religion. (There are some implicit assumptions of monotheism, but that's not technically a requirement.)
When I was more active in Masonry on the Net, back when the Internet was new and shiny and there weren't that many of us there (a close friend and sometime SCAdian put up the first Masonic webpage I know of), I often spent time answering questions about it. One of the most common misconceptions was people who believed that they couldn't join because only Catholics, or only Jews, or only Protestants were allowed in. (Yes, I've run across each religion explicitly believing that only some other one was allowed to be Masons.)
One day, I wound up in a conversation with a Baptist (don't remember the denomination), and expected to have to give the usual clarifications. Instead, it turned out that he wasn't going to be able to join for precisely the opposite reason: *because* Masonry was ecumenical, he felt he had to eschew it.
The discussion was fascinating, because the fellow was no sort of raging bigot or anything like that. But he was very serious about his religion, and took seriously the notion that his interpretation of God was the only correct one. (A statement that most religions believe deep down, but are leery of saying too loudly these days.) Therefore, the ecumenical stance of Masonry, which almost explicitly says that all religions are equally valid, was intellectually dishonest in his view; indeed, it was essentially sinful, because becoming a Mason would have meant endorsing a statement about religion that was counter to his beliefs.
Very eye-opening chat, with some hard truths in it. I'm very used to Blue-State America's religious relativism, and it's too easy to dismiss everyone else as ranting fanatics. But it illustrated that many religions really just aren't compatible with that relativism. And it doesn't require fanaticism to feel that, simply a cool intellectual look at the tenets of the faith...
Re: part 1
That does sound fascinating! Thanks for sharing that.
And I agree with your conclusion -- there are plenty of people out there who have deeply-held "extreme" religious positions who are not fanatics in the usual sense of the word. And y'know, they have rights too...
part 2
So did I. We had a concert every year with mandatory participation. No one was trying to be mean about this; they just assumed that of course everyone was a Christian, and they really didn't know how to handle people who said they weren't. I'll grant that things are probably better now than they were in the 60s and 70s, but I'm not ready to believe that minorities feel on an equal footing just because someone threw a Chanukah song into the Christmas concert.
I'm just thinking that maybe we need to share our celebrations more, throughout the year. Maybe that would even lead to more understanding of each other and peace and harmony and good things.
I agree that sharing more would be good. I think it's safer to approach it as education or demo than as required participation, though. It's ok for me to sing you songs from my religion; it's a bad idea for me to lead you in prayer. I can teach you about the Pesach seder and invite you to observe one if interested, but I shouldn't hold one in the classroom. You can tell me about the liturgy of the mass and invite me to join you at one, but you shouldn't hand out communion. That sort of thing. We need to be careful not to blur that line between "observer" and "participant".
And not just because it makes some people uncomfortable. For some members of some religions, certain types of participation in other religions are understood to be sins. To you it might be a harmless concert; to someone else it might be worship. To you it might just be polite to genuflect upon entering a church; to someone else it is idolatry.
I used to sing in a (secular) choir that did a Christmas concert every year. When I told the director that I would be dropping out for the duration (and returning after that concert each year), she got upset with me. To her (also not a Christian, BTW), music is just music. I could not convince her that there might be a deeper meaning to songs proclaiming a god incarnate. Both of us were trying to understand the other's position but neither succeeded in getting through.
Jewish music recommendations
Oh sure, lots. :-)
For choral music, I cannot recommend highly enough the works of Salamone Rossi, a 17th-century Italian composer who wrote some gorgeous music for 3 to 8 voices. His Shabbat music has been collected as "Songs of Solomon" (yes, it's a pun on his name). There are two different two-CD recordings, both very good and findable on Amazon last I checked.
For choral performances of a variety of Jeuish music, check out the Zamir Chorale from Boston. They're very good, they have several recordings, and they have a mix of liturgical, Israeli, Yiddish, and other music.
For modern singable music, some liturgical and some not, Debbie Friedman is very popular. Her music is kind of folksy, though the newer stuff is sometimes more performer-oriented. (She grew up in the folk traditions of the 60s.) There are a number of other good performers in this space too -- Jeff Klepper, Benjie Ellen Shiller, and Danny Maseng being some of my favorites -- but I'm not sure what's out there in the way of solo recordings. I know them mostly from compilation albums.
If camp-style music is your thing, NFTY (National Federation of Temple Youth) has published several compilation albums over the years. You can get them through Transcontinental Music.
For more Chassidic-style music, which is sometimes meditative and almost mantra-like and sometimes more lively, the name is Shlomo Carlebach. He's a so-so singer in terms of technical qualities, but you can just feel the spirituality in his singing.
For instrumental music, there are lots of klezmer bands out there. I'm out of my depth there; I enjoy the Klezmatics and the Hot Matzohs, though I don't know if the latter have recordings.
I hope other people reading this will add their own recommendations!