Atheism at Christmastime
by: Penna Dexter - Dec 11, 2007 - comments: 13
Early in December, I visited my daughter at college. Spread across her floor was a project she was working on for an elementary education class. The assignment was to prepare a holiday unit for the public school classroom. The project was supposed to include room decorations, a game, songs, and stories. And in order to “fit into” the public school requirements, religious references, including references to Christmas, were forbidden.
I was proud of her exquisite, sparkling work, featuring snowflakes and icicles in shades of silver, white and blue. But there was something very sad about it. It seemed cold and empty compared to the cheery reds, greens and golds of Christmas. The songs were unfamiliar to me. Even “Frosty the Snowman” is taboo, I guess, because it mentions Christmas.
Perhaps I should not be surprised at the way things have progressed. The religious aspects of Christmas have been taboo for awhile. Now even the childhood fun of the Christmas celebration is being stripped from the nation’s public schools.
Legally, the acknowledgment and discussion of Christmas is not forbidden in schools or the public square. But city officials and school administrators across the country are downplaying it for fear of being sued by the ACLU and their “offended” clients.
Christmas vacation is now universally referred to as “winter break” and the Christmas program the “winter concert.” The courts pretty much agree that, in public schools and on government property, manger scenes are required to be combined with secular symbols like reindeer and Christmas trees, or Santas and Frostys.
Christians have kind of come to grips with that. But the secularizers are not satisfied. In recent years, even the non-religious but traditional aspects of Christmas are being challenged.
Town officials are finding themselves in the peculiar position of having to decide whether Christmas—I mean “holiday”—parades can include the presence of Santa Claus. This year, in Fort Collins, Colorado, there was a fight over red and green Christmas lights. A city-appointed task force, which included a member of the Northern Colorado ACLU, proposed the colors be banned. (An overwhelming outcry by citizens convinced the city council not to “mess with tradition.”) This year, the Seattle airport lost its Christmas trees to winter displays.
In the name of inclusiveness, symbols that have nothing to do with the Christian aspects of Christmas are banned from the public square, leaving it cold. You have to wonder: Do people other than ACLU lawyers really want these changes? The answer to that question appeared last month in the form of a survey released by Rasmussen Reports. One thousand adults were polled, and 67 percent said they prefer that retailers use “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays” in their seasonal advertising. Most people are weary of this politically correct nonsense.
As if it were not depressing enough to observe the secularization of Christmas, we also get to live through another attempt by atheist Michael Newdow to strip God from the Pledge of Allegiance. He’s also demanding that “under God” be removed from our national motto. Newdow was back in federal court on December 4, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that affirmed his challenge to the pledge in 2002.
Hollywood is cooperating with the outright promotion of atheism to kids. Just in time for the Christmas movie season comes the epic fantasy film, The Golden Compass. The film has the look of the Chronicles of Narnia movie that was so successful a couple of years ago. But it’s the anti- Narnia.
The Golden Compass is based on the first book in the His Dark Materials trilogy written by British atheist Phillip Pullman. Pullman hates C. S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia. In fact, his trilogy is meant to counteract the message of Christianity that Lewis so beautifully describes for children. The internal knowledge of God we all have, the law written on our hearts described in Romans 2, the conscience that even a child has . . . these, Pullman attempts to squelch.
Pullman says he’s surprised his books have not received more criticism. The final book in the trilogy is about “killing God.” The director of The Golden Compass admits the anti-God message is “watered down” for financial reasons. Its success will allow the production of the next two films in the trilogy, and they will be much more faithful to the books.
Several recent bestselling books by atheists have become weapons in this secular war on Christians and their beliefs. Author Dinesh D’Souza describes the struggle and counters their arguments in his new book, What’s So Great About Christianity? He argues that atheists have developed a strategy to win the minds of the next generation. Believing and involved parents are the counter to this, and the atheists know it.
Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, calls faith a mental illness, and raises the question of whether or not parents should “be free to impose their beliefs on their children.” Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great, asks “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?” And another atheist, Sam Harris, wrote The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. He believes atheism should be taught because it is “an admission of the obvious.”
In his recent speech on faith, presidential candidate Mitt Romney lamented the secularization of America, saying, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” He is a Mormon. How much more should Christians be the defenders of faith in culture?
There was once a Christian consensus in this country that walled off the influence of atheism on the culture. Free nations should welcome religion, specifically Christianity, because it preserves freedom. Totalitarian regimes benefit when the culture is stripped of religion, or religious celebrations.
In the former Soviet Union, Communists feared Christianity and gradually secularized the Christmas holiday. They wrote Jesus out of Christmas carols, banned St. Nicholas, and banned Christmas trees. Not willing to let go, the people moved these traditions to New Year’s.
Our nation is still overwhelmingly Christian. We pride ourselves on our tolerance of all religions . . . or no religion. But Christians should remain vigilant and winsomely seek to remain the primary drivers and influencers of culture in America.
Penna Dexter is a board member of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, a conservative activist and an announcer on the syndicated radio program Life on the Line. She currently serves as a consultant for KMA Direct Communications in Plano, Texas, and as a co-host of Jerry Johnson Live, a production of Criswell Communications.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Children, Education, Pop Culture, Citizenship, Legislation, Religious Liberty
13 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Dec 11th, 2007, at 3:37pm, David Williamson wrote:
I agree with Mrs. Dexter in her assessment of the increasingly agressive tactics of secularists. However, I wonder what Christians gain in forcing others, who may not be Christians, and business organizations to keep using the phrase “Christmas”. How does this help us in the current war of worldviews? Please understand me. I am not opposed to social/religious activism, but I wonder if we should focus our time and resources on more productive methods. Obviously, when the tactics of athiests and secularists distort the message and meaning of the Gospel and when these tactics seek to indocrinate the next generation, believers must act, and act in very specific ways. However, on this issue of the secularization of Christmas, would we not be better served by intiating a cultural revolution through the sharing of the Gospel? There will come a day when everyone will confess Jesus(Philippians 2:9-11), but until that day, God doesn’t force anyone to confess Jesus. What do you think?
2 On Dec 11th, 2007, at 9:11pm, Lara Johnson wrote:
Everyone talks about not offending other people as an excuse for all the secular, leave Christ out of the holiday. Are we Christians not “people?” Are others’s feelings more important than ours? We are in the condition we are today because Christians stood back and took no stand at all, so others wouldn’t be offended - Those people have a choice of not participating or joining in. But without Jesus, there would have been no “winter holiday.” (Which we realize is a specific date man set - but for lack of knowing an exact date.)
3 On Dec 12th, 2007, at 4:18am, Jodi wrote:
In response to David Williamson:
i do not fully agree with your comments and am somewhat dismayed. i am just expressing my opinion and not intending to offent Mr. Wiliamson. Just offering my perspective.
A holiday is what it is: Easter, Thanksgiving, Halloween, etc. The holiday is rooted in the birth of Christ. If someone does not want to celebrate the holiday of Christmas, then i suggest individuals organize another holiday to celebrate. George Kastainka’s father did just that in an episode of Seinfeld! So i say “go for it, but leave Christmas alone.”
If i as a Christian, travel to India or China or any other nation should i be so offended by the name of a holiday--which is culturally rooted in a specific person or religion--that i no longer call the holiday what it is? And beyond that expect others to remove any images, etc. which represent that holiday. For instance, remove the name or images of “Buddha” from that specific holiday.
4 On Jan 2nd, 2008, at 9:05pm, Greg wrote:
As the son of a Catholic and a Jew both my parents faced a lot of persecution when they were growing up. I don’t think religion should be ignored or forbidden, but no religion should be given preference over another. Every religion should be allowed to be discussed openly and should be given equal respect.
I enjoy the Golden Compass and Narnia both. Actually, my Jewish mother read the Chronicles of Narnia to me when I was little. I come from a family of respect towards all religions and we take criticism for what its worth. For example, I accept the criticism the Golden Compass has for religious authorities but I don’t accept its criticism of a belief in God.
I understand it is natural to feel defensive when your religion is threatened but lets remember that atheists are probably the most persecuted group when it comes to issues of religion. The majority of Americans believe in God and that belief is incredibly strong. Let’s show atheists the same respect we want them to show us.
5 On Jan 4th, 2008, at 3:14pm, David Williamson wrote:
I agree with Greg that Christians should allow adherents of other religions to discuss their beliefs. If Christians are going to find bridges from other worldviews to Christianity, they must be willingly to listen respectfully. However, I not sure that I agree with Greg’s assertion that “athiests are probably the most persecuted group when it comes to issues of religion.” Upon what evidence is this assertion based? Would not history point to either the Jews or the Christians as the most persecuted?
Respectfully,
David Williamson
6 On Jan 4th, 2008, at 3:18pm, Jodi wrote:
Maybe i as a Christian am offended by Halloween and the images of evil which are glamourized and applauded. But the Christian community has not requested the name be changed. They have taken the opportunity to share goodness during this time with Hallelujiah parties and trunk or treats at churches.
i personally find it ridiculous that people are offended by “Christmas.” Christians have long been too passive. We are not forcing anyone to become a Christian by wanting Christmas to remain what it has been called for hundreds of years. Our entire language is a mileau of religious terminologies, different cultures, and languages combined. Months, holidays, etc. are named for pagan gods (Easter: Eros, St. Hallows Eve--druid holiday). So should i not also expect the same treatment as the non-Christian.
At some point political correctness (or incorrectness from my perspective) has to take a backseat to good old fashioned common sense.
7 On Jan 7th, 2008, at 3:04pm, Greg wrote:
To David,
To clarify, my point was about Atheism in modern America. Although I wouldn’t go so far to say that Jews live without persecution, they live, especially in major urban centers, pretty well connected lives. Even though they are only 2% of the American population they are business leaders, senators, etc. One came a Supreme Court decision away from becoming the Vice President. Concerning CHristians, the majority of Americans believe that the U.S. is a Christian nation. However, let me list the results of a gallup poll.
Here are the percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for “a generally well-qualified person for president” on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years:
Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%)
Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%)
Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%)
Baptist: 6%
Woman: 8%
Mormon: 17%
Muslim: 38%
Gay: 37% (1978: 74%)
Atheist: 48%
8 On Jan 7th, 2008, at 3:11pm, Greg wrote:
I am not saying Christians need to bend over backwards for political correctness by sacrificing their own beliefs. However, they need to respect the beliefs of those who may believe different, including those who believe that there is no god. You can call it PC or whatever, but its a question of respect and everyone’s beliefs deserve the same level of respect.
Christians are naturally more privileged in America than others religions. They represent every single president of the U.S. They control all levels of government. The Missouri legislature reads a prayer that mentions Jesus, but makes no provision for atheists, Jews, Muslims, or anyone else. Christians, as the privileged have a voice, and like frequently like to use that voice to proclaim their faith. That is fine. But at least be conscious that there are religious minorities, including atheists, that frequently don’t feel that same empowerment to be able to openly proclaim THEIR faith, without fear of prejudice.
9 On Jan 7th, 2008, at 4:46pm, David wrote:
To Greg,
We are on the same side in many respects, especially on the issue of respecting other religious adherents. I would pose two questions for consideration. First, how are you understanding the term “persecution”? I am not sure that I would place the fact that most Americans don’t feel comfortable electing an avowed athiest on par with the what the Jews encountered in WWII. (Then again maybe I don’t understand the statistics you have cited.) I also don’t think the definition of a term should be confined to the modern era or to the North American continent. Persecution to an American and persecution to someone in Kenya is probably drastically different.
10 On Jan 7th, 2008, at 4:52pm, David wrote:
To Greg,
Second, have you read Dr. Albert Molher’s commentary entitled “The New Atheism”? (See also the related article in Wired Magazine.) If you haven’t, I would suggest that you read it, for the current leaders in the American Atheistic movement are not cowering in some dark corner stroking their security blankets and sucking their thumbs. They are going for the jugular.
11 On Jan 8th, 2008, at 4:48pm, Greg wrote:
Well to answer your first question, I was using the word persecute in its basic sense, to oppress. they are an oppressed group and I think that statistic shows the prejudice that Americans have towards atheists. As far as the holocaust and that other stuff you cited, I am not personally in the business of rating or putting value to oppression. I don’t think racism is worse than homophobia or sexism isn’t as bad as anti-semitism. I personally think prejudice or persecution is wrong in all its forms. I don’t rank them.
If I came across as saying that atheists have it worse period, I misspoke and apologize. My point is that American opinion has evolved to be more accepting, at least on a superficial level, of Jews, gays, African Americans, and Catholics, while Atheists seem to have been left behind.
12 On Jan 8th, 2008, at 5:21pm, Greg wrote:
And I also don’t think that a couple of leaders of a group should be allowed to portray the feelings of the whole group. Just because a couple powerful atheist leaders feel comfortable speaking out about something doesn’t mean all atheists feel that way. (Plus I don’t think how atheist leaders sometime attack non-atheists for believing God is appropriate either.)
Because I am not an atheist means I can be elected president. That is a privilege that I don’t think I deserve. I respect people who believe god exists and I think that same respect should be extended to those who believe god doesn’t exist. Simple as that.
13 On Dec 9th, 2008, at 4:12pm, Kylyssa Shay wrote:
I would think that by persecution, perhaps Greg meant the way atheists are sometimes physically attacked, suffer through hostile work environments and are forced to be “in the closet” to hold down jobs, and how their children face emotional, verbal, and physical abuse from public school classmates and school staff in parts of America. He might also mean the way many atheists have to stay “in the closet” to be treated civilly by relatives and acquaintances.
While none of these things compare to the Holocaust, surely they aren’t acceptable to Christians?