Happy Holidaze

“So if you don’t go to church, why do you celebrate Christmas?”  That was the question my Mom asked me a few years back, and my answer to her seemed to satisfy.  I had reason to ask myself the same question earlier today, and thought that it might serve as a way to wish everyone “Seasons Greetings” or “Happy Holidays” or even “Merry Christmas” because they all kind of apply, despite not being Christian.

The answer is two-fold as to why I, an atheist, celebrate the season.

Habit/Tradition:  I was raised Lutheran, baptized, confirmed, and, having no other option as a youngster, assumed that this was the way it was.  I had questions that really didn’t get good answers from the ministers at Zion Lutheran, so…I went looking elsewhere.  I found a whole host of reasons not to believe (or to adopt one of the other thousand-plus religions/creeds/variations), yet, continued to practice (somewhat irregularly) as a Lutheran…until age 20, when either (a) I left the church or (b) they tossed me out, depending on who you ask.  Still, I celebrated Christmas, partly because nearly everyone else around me did.  I was hardly the rebellious type – heck, despite my lack of church membership and religiosity, I was married in a church (not that one).

My wife and I continued to join our parents and grandparents by celebrating Christmas, though the infusion of religion into the celebrations amounted to saying grace, and that was about it.  Mom and my grandfather went to Christmas Eve services, but no one else did.  It seemed no big deal not to go, so…no one did (except Mom and her Dad).  And when my grandfather was older and less mobile, he stopped going, as did Mom (for a while, anyway).  Our family Christmas get-togethers were mostly about food, presents, and family.  If it wasn’t for a Christmas tree in the corner (and presents), there was little to distinguish Christmas Day from Thanksgiving, or Easter, or the Fourth of July (well, we didn’t wear t-shirts on Christmas).  You get the idea.  It was a holiday, but it didn’t seem like a religious one.

 And when we moved away, there was no family to get together with, but we still “do Christmas.”  Which brings me to the second reason…

The Spirit:  Even if you take the “reason” away from the celebration, the “spirit” of Christmas seems to provide its own level of satisfaction.  Some might even say that the secular aspects the season seems to be what MOST folks deem important – certainly, it seems more time and money is spent on the right tree, grand presents, lights hung from every corner of the house, food, drink, merriment…and did anyone remember to put the crèche up and does anyone know why that’s important? 

Two things I should point out right about now:

1. I do know the “Christmas Story,” thank you.  But did you know that it’s only in two of the four Gospels (Mark and John felt, for some reason, that it wasn’t important to cover in their books).  Also, the story isn’t the same in Matthew and Luke, for some reason.  While many speculate as to why this might be, you should also know that…
2. Christmas is the reason I became atheist.  I could not reconcile all of the irregularities in the Bible (and the teachings of my church), plus, the more I learned from Biblical scholars, publications, and the like, the less the whole thing made sense.  Virgin birth?  There are at least 32 other stories in various cultures who describe similar virgin births.  You believe in one and not the others?  Why, exactly?  Plus, the idea that Jesus was born in summer and the date moved to December to co-op winter pagan festivals is also well documented.  Heck, even a past Pope questioned the date (it’s not documented in the Bible, after all). 

I could go on and on about all of that, but it’s not important.  What is important is the original question – if I don’t believe, why celebrate?  Because I can.

To me, Christmas is a happy time.  A time to share (presents and good company).  A time to reflect and prepare.  A time to remember the message:  “Peace on Earth, good will to all.”  Yes, some go overboard with how much they spend, how much they eat, how much they drink.  We try to keep it simple – no tree, but we have a wreath (I love the smell of pine).  No church service, but we play Christmas music a lot, especially these next few days.  There has been a ton of music written for the season (some secular, some not), but honestly, some of the BEST music is Christmas music, and we look forward to playing some of our off-beat Christmas CDs (Mannheim Steamroller, Kingston Trio and some compilation albums).  We send cards, we make a special meal, and we try to be jolly and merry.  And, of course, we wish the best for all our friends and family…and total strangers, too (the last week of December is when we write all of our donation checks).

And I’ll take this opportunity to wish you, dear reader, the best of the season.  Choose your greeting below, and See You Next Year!

Merry Christmas

Happy Holidays

Seasons Greetings

Happy Kwanzaa

Happy Hanukkah

Blessed Ramadan

Happy? Festivus

Happy Boxing Day

Happy Omisoka

Happy Saturnalia

Happy New Year!

True North on a Moral Compass

This one has been stewing all week.  So much has happened in the aftermath of the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, and so much has been said, that I needed to put down on paper how I truly feel.  It’s not easy.

You’d think it would be.  Sure, I sympathize with all of those who deplore what happened.  No one should have to die for what they believe in.  Fact is no one should have to die.  Yes, we all die, but taking a life is one of those supposedly sacrosanct acts that everyone agrees on.  Except we don’t, and that’s the problem.

I am not religious, yet I try to run my life my one of the oldest morality codes known - the Golden Rule (do unto others, etc.).  If you’re like most folks, Rule #6 in the Ten Commandments is familiar:  “Thou Shall Not Kill.”

Note that there is a period at the end of the sentence.  No asterisk.  No footnote.  It doesn’t say “Thou Shall Not Kill, Unless…”  It says don’t kill (or in some translations, don’t murder).  Period.

It doesn’t matter what the “good reason” you might have.  Don’t kill.  Pretty simple.

Except - you and I know that right off the top of our heads, we could think of a scenario or two where we might think, “But…there ARE exceptions.”  Sure - if someone is threatening a loved one, or you, and harm is imminent, and it’s either kill or be killed - sure, lots of you are nodding your heads.

Me too.  I’d love to say, “No, I would try to reason…”  Or maybe, “I would not kill, but stop them somehow - aim for their trigger finger…” (this is hysterical at my house as I have a vision issue that leaves me with lousy depth perception, so sighting a rifle is more dangerous to me than to anyone on the other end).  Still, I am saying that I might certainly harm someone if they were trying to harm me.  You might have some other scenarios that you could justify.

Without a doubt, I would not harm someone who drew a cartoon, no matter what the subject.  I would also not harm someone who was thinking about harming someone who drew a cartoon.  But we’re not there yet.

Go back to the “Thou Shall Not Kill” thought.  Go further, and say, “Thou Shall Not Harm.”  Now, we’re really screwed.  Because while we can all agree on the definition of “kill,” we can argue until the sacred cows come home about “harm.”

Certainly, there are those who could argue that a cartoon can harm.  I’d disagree. But here we are.

No one has a moral compass that points to true north.  We’re all a little off, some more so than others.  How we deal with that difference is why we’re here, and where we go from here defines us as human beings.

As for me…I think that one of the most important items in our arsenal to bring the world together is communication, and the idea of “free speech” is paramount.  As is understanding (which can’t occur without free speech, BTW).  This includes the use of humor, parody, and satire, both of which have been found to be powerful influences that aid in understanding.

I saw in awe and watched the outpouring of support immediately after the Charlie Hebdo tragedy.  Across the world, people proclaimed “Je Suis Charlie” (I Am Charlie). I was not certain if I would be that brave, to continue to speak my mind in the face of a potential death sentence.

I now realize that I have no say as to how, and when, I die.  Therefore, I have no other choice but to speak. To not do so would be the death sentence.

Critical of the Critics

Imagine this – you’re a big-time newspaper editor, in need of a reviewer for a new Barbecue cookbook.  You choose Fred, a life-long Vegetarian who thinks people who eat meat are the scourge of the earth.  Do you think they’ll be able to do a credible job?  A fair assessment?

Are you nuts?

So explain to me why The Wall Street Journal picked Naomi Schaefer Riley to review Atheist Awakening, a new book by Richard Cimino and Christopher Smith? (Cimino teaches sociology at the University of Richmond and has authored several books about Religion; Smith is an independent researcher).  Sure, WSJ mentions at the end of the “review” that “Ms. Riley is the author of ‘Got Religion?: How Churches, Mosques, and Synagogues Can Bring Young People Back’.”  But they failed to mention that she has written more than just “a book” (five, including another favorable to religion), and lots of articles for the New York Post (same owner as WSJ now) that are pro-religion and anti-atheist, including this one.

Now before I go on to discuss why it’s probably unethical to have a pro-religion critic of an “examination of atheists” book, a couple of full disclosures: 

• I do not regularly subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, but for some reason just received a one-month trial subscription.  Trust me when I say that, politically, economically, and just about any other-cally, I am one of the LAST people to want the Journal.

• I am, by self-labeling, a Type Two Atheist.  Type One is the Richard Dawkins/Sam Harris anti-religion crowd, atheists who make a point in slamming religion because it is religious.  Type Two folks like me just are not religious, have no need for it, and don’t make it part of our life, culture, etc.  That’s not to say that I can’t be critical of topics with religious applications, but in general it’s for reasons other than “it’s religious.”  For example, I decry calls to “return America to its religious roots” not because it’s religious, but because it is historically inaccurate (USA was not founded as a Christian nation, so you can’t return to what you never were).

Like the vegan critical of a pulled-pork recipe, Ms. Riley skewers the book.  I think.  It’s hard to tell, really, and that’s the other criticism I have about this review.  Riley’s writing style is such that it’s difficult to determine when she’s reviewing about what is actually in the book versus when she’s just hyperventilating critical of the atheist movement in general.  She writes almost as much about Richard Dawkins as she does Cimino and Smith, and mixes quotes from the book with other argumentative comments to give the impression that this is the opinion of the book authors. 

She offers (so it seems to me) her own views on what is and isn’t an atheist (how convenient) near the end of her review:

Such ideals (atheist ‘churches’ and rituals discussed in previous paragraph of review) may appeal to some of the young adults who have abandoned religion, but the vast majority of the unaffiliated are not atheists as such.  They are simply disaffected and indifferent, and many are uneducated about religious doctrine. They have no biblical literacy and embrace the shallow notion that good behavior is relative and that being ‘judgmental’ is the big problem in life.

In a word, Jesus (as a word of exasperation, not an answer nor a curse).  For most of the atheists I know (including myself), it was because of our education about religious doctrine and the Bible (self-directed, usually; certainly NOT from religious leaders or “scholars” save for folks like UNC Professor Bart D. Ehrman).  The more we learned, the more we pushed against religion.  In my opinion, those that rely more on faith than reason do so because they have lack a certain capacity to reason.  At least, about religion.

I did not link to her review because it’s behind a subscription wall.  But I will link to some other reviews here, here, and here, and provide the last few sentences of a review from Publishers Weekly:

This is a meticulous study that embeds atheist community in a larger context of subcultures, showing identity formation, the assertion of that identity, and the need to be included. The authors excel in demonstrating the inevitably social dimensions of human identity.

I admit that I have not read the book.  In reviewing Riley’s review, I am somewhat doubtful that she did, either (much of what she comments on I read in the free preview from Amazon.com).  On Amazon, the book was described thusly: “This groundbreaking study will be essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the growing atheist movement in America.”  Riley’s review certainly lacked understanding of either atheism or the book itself.  I suspect that was her true motivation.