Christmas and Chanukah

[cellio]

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.

Comments

Re: part 1

[jducoeur]

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...

Re: part 1

[cellio]

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...