cellio | Christmas and Chanukah

Two takes on multiculturalism and December holidays, both written by liberal Jews, with rather different stances: one from JBCs (Jews by Choice) and one from the Velveteen Rabbi. I myself tend more toward the former; when we try to combine holidays with the goal of better interfaith relations, I think we weaken both. Christmas is the second most important day on the Christian calendar; it should be important and solemn for those who believe, and not be treated as somehow equivalent to a minor Jewish holiday commemorating, of all things, a victory over assimilation. (Think about that irony for a minute.) If I find myself in the midst of Christian affirmation, which to me includes everything from a mass down to singing Handel's Messiah, they should do their thing and I should withdraw [1]. We shouldn't have to compromise on "Frosty the Snowman" or a theme of light in the darkest days of winter.

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yes, I did assume you mean public places. I was thinking about cubicle farms myself.

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*

Yes, I did assume you mean public places. I was thinking about cubicle farms myself.

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?

***
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.

Well, I would have a hard time arguing against that.

But imagine coming from a tradition that says gazing upon such things is sinful. I know such traditions exist.

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...

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.

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...

Christmas and Chanukah

Re: part 1

Re: part 1

Re: part 1

Re: part 1

Re: part 1

Re: part 1