"Saving" Christmas

A piece in the New York Times explains how groups are advertising Alito's support for Christmas displays on government property. Fair enough, but some groups are also taking aim at businesses that don't use the word Christmas.

This is bizarre to me for several reasons. One is that Christmas isn't a very good holiday for Christianity. It celebrates commercialism and materialism, as well as emphasizing the existence of a supernatural being known by adults not to exist. Its timing and its trappings are pagan. Reminding everyone that Christmas is a Christian holiday is thus counterproductive. It's as if we tried to increase American popularity in India by promoting the slogan, "Yay for Union Carbide!" Evocative, yes; of the right emotions, no.

Another weird thing about this movement is that it's hard to see how it has any impact at all. Is anyone unaware that the prominent holiday in late December is Christmas? Has anyone missed the Santa Claus's in the mall, the candy canes and Christmas trees, the annoying fucking music? (It so happens that the only worthwhile Christmas music is actually religious Christian music; maybe the groups should pressure stores not to play shit like "Jingle Bells.")

Finally, it's just a little weird to spend so much effort rubbing people's faces in the fact that Christians run this country. "Taking back" Christmas means asserting the political and cultural power of Christians, not advancing any particular Christian value. I would have much more respect for these people if they used the phrase "taking back Christmas" to mean abandoning commercialism and bland well-wishing, emphasizing instead the spiritual significance of the holiday. They would rather co-opt all that selfish crassness for their own political purposes, and that is both strange and vile.