Merry Christmas Even if You’re Christian
December 27th, 2006 by Peter
That seemed to be the theme of the Courant’s holiday editions. In the Christmas Eve issue Bill Curry wistfully recalls a priest who told him that “Jesus wanted to be followed, not worshipped,” Colin McEnroe’s otherwise interesting column on his deceased parents ends by noting that “on Christmas Day, I seek not the baby, but [my] father and mother” and Susan Campbell favorably reviews over a dozen books mostly organized around a theme of “Aren’t those evangelicals icky? Wouldn’t they be less icky if they stopped voting Republican?”
The Courant also judged its Christmas Day edition an opportune time to run a letter by the local head of a Catholic dissident group “that the Catholic Church openly admit its sinfulness” in the sex abuse scandals.
But my favorite item in the Courant’s “Merry Christmas Even if You’re Christian” package has to be the paper’s Christmas Day editorial. The editors rightly note that “The Christmas season has become a cultural phenomenon that can be enjoyed by everyone, regardless of beliefs” but then claim that “In this country, about two-thirds of the population call themselves Christian,” which is about 20% lower than the number usually cited.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not faulting our local paper of record for putting out the healthy message that “one need not be Christian to observe [Christmas] with tradition, charity and good will to others.” But it is odd that the vast majority of Courant commentary on one of the holiest Christian holidays of the year seems aimed at non-Christians or liberals who dissent from this or that aspect of what is, for most Christians, the lived reality of the faith.
And I can’t help but wonder if it’s something rooted in how the Courant’s writers view the world–including the world of Connecticut politics and culture–that causes them to approach Christmas in this way.
It reminds me of the Nancy Pelosi parody that ran on Saturday Night Live right after the election. Pelosi wants to assure the public that, as the next Speaker of the House, her values are basic American values, including freedom of religion: “whether you’re a Wiccan priestess, a Druid, tantric Buddhist, Servant of Moloch, Lord of Fire, Presbyterian, or a member of the cult of Kali.”
The country’s population is overwhelmingly Christian. Surely it wouldn’t hurt the Courant to provide more uplifting commentary aimed at us on Christmas Day. Or would it?
The question is, why do you need the affirmation of the Courant — or of ANY media outlet — to make your celebration of Christmas more important or valid?
Can’t you just celebrate in the way that is most meaningful to YOU according to your beliefs, enjoy the holiday/holy day in the ways you see fit, and stop looking over your shoulder to see who’s watching you and what they think?
Quite honestly, what the Courant thinks about Christmas shouldn’t enter into your celebration of Christmas at all. Focusing on that detracts from the meaning of the day.
what the Courant thinks about Christmas shouldn’t enter into your celebration of Christmas at all
Of course, it doesn’t. But the point is that the Courant, which attempts to portray itself as an objective, credible media outlet, has an opinion and lets it show on every page.
“Of course, it doesn’t.”
Of course it does. This site spends an inordinate amount of time railing about how other people think about, celebrate/don’t celebrate, refer to and otherwise deal with Christmas in specific and Christianity/religion in general.
Everyone has an opinion; they just don’t always share yours. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong, nor does it mean they’re wrong. It in no way means anyone has declared a “war” on Christmas, Christianity or religion.
What other people think, and what the Courant publishes, has zero effect on your freedom to think and believe and act. And, quite honestly, what you think and believe shouldn’t be forced on other people either.
Why do you all seem to require outside validation in order to go about your lives?
No, Chele, Steve has it right. I posted my comments not for Christmas’ sake, but for the Courant’s. A paper that’s suffered a 10% circulation decline in 5 years might do itself a favor by offering more uplifting spiritual commentary on what is, for most of its readers, one of the holiest days of the year. Not because we suffer from some grandiose need for “outside validation” but out of a far more modest–and reasonable–desire not to be insulted on Christmas Day.
But I agree with you, Chele, that there’s something wrong about requiring “outside validation to live your lives.” Gay groups in CT, for instance, are demanding same-sex “marriage” even though it would not give them a single new “right” that they don’t already have under civil unions. It seems the only real purpose of same-sex “marriage” is societal affirmation…in other words these groups require “outside vaildation in order to go about their lives.” Perhaps you should have a talk with them.
Nice attempt at “spin” Peter.
If gays are seeking “societal affirmation” through legal marriage, what then is your group seeking by trying to deny gays the same rights you have, declaring that marriage is “only between one man and one woman?” Can you only find validation of your own marriages by denying the same right to gays? Sorry, but the idea that people can only validate the importance of marriage by denying it to a segment of the population seems rather sad to me.
Homosexuals are human beings, just the same as you. And they fall in love just the same as you. And they want to be able to … yes, show and validate that love within our society, just the same as you. To gain the same comfort and committment from marriage that you do. THAT was the basis of the Massachussetts decision: It wasn’t about financial, contractual etc. rights. It said that gays were guaranteed the same HUMAN rights to validate their loving relationships as you are.
The only way to invalidate that decision is to change the MA Constitution in a way that says a certain group shall be denied a basic human right that is open to others. Somehow I don’t find that an uplifting exercise — but then I’ve never been in favor of discrimination and denial of human rights. Apparently others are… and God have mercy on their souls for forgetting that what they do to the least of their brethern they also do to God.
As to the Courant, any drop in circulation they may have suffered is due more to the fact that its audience has myriad other sources of information gathering than it did 5 and more years ago: television, radio, the internet, rapid delivery of other newspapers from outside the Hartford area. And let us not forget that society as a whole has become more illiterate, prefering quick soundbites to the in-depth analysis that newspapers provide. Don’t go claiming responsibility for the Courant’s circulation drop… especially when you all seem to pore over it… um… religiously. Despite its lack of “uplifiting spiritual commentary.”
I really don’t see how the Courant can manage to “insult” you by not providing what you think is adequate coverage of Christmas. Isn’t it enough for you to celebrate the birth of the Savior with your family, friends and loved ones? Why on earth are you expecting the Courant to provide you with “uplifting spiritual commentary?” That’s not the role of a newspaper. Journalism is supposed to provide dispassionate reportage.
The thing I love about your response is that you’re basically conceding that, yes, pro same-sex “marriage” activists are seeking “outside validation”…but, in your mind, that’s good when it’s them and bad when it’s us.
No wonder you don’t see bias at the Courant…you share it!
No need to attack, Peter.
Marriage is, at its heart, validation for everyone who enters into it: of self worth, of love for another, of position, of place — of many many things unique to each human being.
I did not deny that gays are seeking the same validations that you and all other heterosexuals are entitled to. In point of fact, if you READ my post, I indeed said homosexuals are seeking that same validation YOU have. That is the heart of the matter and the core of the court decision in MA. What part of that don’t you understand?
Equal marriage rights for all is a far cry from needing to have your faith validated by newspaper reportage. The role of journalism isn’t to validate anything; it is to report newsworthy fact. Is it “news” that Christians celebrate Christmas? I don’t think so. And I’d imagine that most Christians would be looking to their churches and religious literature for spiritually uplifting messages during the Christmas season — not to a secular newspaper.
And I’m not biased. It’s rather silly to get all accusatory because someone differs with you on the role of the secular media.
I’m truly puzzled by the need some people have to position themselves as a martyred segment of society when, as you say, they are the majority of the population and enjoy the freedom to worship as they please. When you have to comb through a newspaper and find things it DIDN’T say in order to paint yourself as a victim, you’re reaching.
Yes, please stop worshiping the Courant and seeking guidance, counsel, and affirmation from that rag. Go home, close your eyes, and worship quietly with your opposite-gendered spouse as you see fit – without regard to how you are portrayed. Surely it won’t matter how the birth of your Lord is covered in the media. What is the worst that could happen? Young miscreants will become emboldend and smash statues of your favorite diety in front of the Knights of Columbus Hall? Pish-aww. It seems to me that you were ignoring Jesus on his birthday, just to drum up empathy for FIC and your mucho-nuevo interpretation of marriage. Or, was the Courant the one ignoring Jesus to drum the message to its readers that Christianity is unimportant? Since the Courant is very unbiased, and only doggedly driven by facts, I think it twas the first! Anyway, everyone has an opinion; they just don’t always share mine. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong, but doesn’t it mean you’re wrong? Just that we have opinions, I guess, and that they are expressed. I can now go to work assured that I have my opinions, my boss has his opinions, and even Jesus has his opinions. That none of us are wrong, but that we all win because we have opined. I think that line will not only work at my next job appraisal, but even on Judgement Day. THANKS!!
Can I also just put out there that the purpose of the State’s recognition of marriage is not to validate affection (though that is a very romantic idea). If that was true, then it would be issuing friendship licenses and good-buddy permits. The purpose of the state imprimateur on marriage is to encourage societal stability by compelling spouses to stay together for the sake of the children till they get over whatever is making them want to give up. Unfortunately, this basic knowledge has been lost ever since unilateral or no-fault divorce was forced on us by the Bar and legislators. And, when I say “us”, I mean women. Because we are the ones that truly suffer under unilateral divorce laws, minus the .01% made-for-TV-movie-type outlier cases. Suffer the children, and suffered they have, so that Mommy or Daddy can now leave when they are no longer “in love”.