Labels -- December redux
December is not the easiest month, as I'm sure many feel. This last one I spent a lot of time being irritated and I know a large part of that is because the waiting on Canada is getting to me and because of my current irregular work/income situation. But also, I'm sick of the stupid "culture wars" that surround the holidays in December. The nattering that pretends to be a debate is never very honest, never very good-willed.
I am, by birth and upbringing, bi-cultural. Society is not good at dealing with those that do not neatly fit into categories. People want to classify other people and I find that often it is not in the hopes of understanding that person better, but in order to be able to project their pre-conceived notions of what certain labels mean or should mean -- whether for the ultimate purposes of bigotry or chauvinism (the flip side of bigotry, not as ugly), but still not constructive.
Having said the above, I make the following observations/opinions:
A Christmas tree is not the same as a crucifix. It's a green thing with lights and shiny things that is brought indoors in a time of darkness and dormancy. It has become a cultural symbol. Yes, it has roots in religion (but more pagan than Christian) -- but what doesn't? Shall we ban all the names of months and days of the week because they're named after gods? On the radio, I heard a leader of another religion talking about how Christian a Christmas tree is with the sap being the blood of Jesus Christ. I have NEVER heard of such a thing, although I'm sure you'll find some believers out there. But that's not the common understanding -- and he knows that.
Hanukkah (or however you'd like to spell it in English) is not the "Jewish Christmas." First, Christmas is not the central Christian holiday; Easter is. Christmas was created by popular demand for a birth holiday and to compete with previous (pagan) winter celebrations. Hanukkah is a minor post-biblical holiday. The primary Jewish holiday is the Sabbath (which, yes, occurs weekly), followed by the High Holy Days. Shoving a Hanukkah menorah next to a Christmas tree does nothing to promote understanding or to educate folks about the religious/cultural traditions of others.
Suggestion: In a public place, such as an airport, couldn't we have rotating displays -- throughout the year -- of different cultures and traditions?
Instead of promoting false equivalences, how about showcasing the uniqueness of each community and promoting better understanding? (And, yes, guidelines should be hammered out.)
It is not a crime to be a minority. Nor is it an offense to be in the majority. People in the majority should be respectful of those who are not. And those in the minority cannot expect those in the majority to wash themselves of all identity so as not to "offend." Let's just give an easy example: I don't expect male/female couples to hide their affection; it would be nice if I felt as comfortable holding my husband's hand in public without fear.
Well, now that I'm in for a penny, I'm in for a pound and I'll just continue to venture into shark-infested waters. I've had this idea for a post for the past month or so that I would call, "I'm not an atheist, but I play one in public."
I have always been attracted to, for lack of a better word, the spiritual. I believe that there are big questions and issues that are unknowable, that humans have often untapped capacity for good, that the whole can be more than just the sum of its parts. I don't think that any one culture or tradition has a monopoly on truth. That being said, there have been great people who have showed us glimpses of the best of humanity that do come from particular traditions and to separate them from their traditions is to not respect or understand them.
I think we need to judge people by their actions, how they treat other people, and not by their labels. (Don't get me wrong, organizations are very much on the hook for the ideas they promote and/or the lies they spread. And political parties are, by definition, about policy so backing one or another is about how people are treated.)
The scientific method is the best way we've come up with yet for exploring our natural world. Through science, we have greatly improved our lives. It doesn't answer questions of right and wrong; science is descriptive. What we do with the information is up to us.
When it comes to public policy in a pluralistic society/world, we have to stick with the tangible. There's no other way to get along. We need to look at how things affect people and the harm or help a policy will have on people. We'll never agree about the nature of things that we can't see and there's no point arguing; it only gets ugly and separates us further. I believe in the process of the scientific method. When it comes to public policy, I am an atheist.
But I don't like to apply that label to myself because it is not how I feel inside, it is not how I approach the world or the Big Questions. I'd really just like to be free to not know and to seek.
Those who claim to Know the Truth (such as by talking to God) scare me. Because, by definition, they can't be wrong in a debate. A scientific statement (one that is within the scope of the scientific method) is not one that can be proven true -- but one that can be proven false. That is, there is a way one could devise to show that this statement is incorrect if that's the case.
I've known a lot of people that have various approaches when it comes to religion or spirituality. Sometimes, they take on the labels of a particular tradition or practice. Sometimes, they lean one way or another, but shy from identification. Atheists. Agnostics. The people I respect have respect for others, care about others, do not demean others.
I'm uncomfortable giving religions a "free pass." One can't justify any behavior and say "that's my religion." One can't enslave others into compliance. I believe in a pluralistic society and we have to find a way to get along. Bringing religion into public policy debate is not helpful; it only serves to divide. Those kind of politics are about power, not the betterment of the community. And doing better and being better should be what it's all about, in my opinion. When it comes to public policy, we need to stick with the tangible. When it comes to someone's internal life, we shouldn't let that come between us; it's personal.
I don't know if this post is well-structured or coherent. But it feels good to get it out because I've been sitting on it for weeks now. To anyone who's made it through these ramblings ... well, I hope it hasn't been too arduous.
Peace.
I am, by birth and upbringing, bi-cultural. Society is not good at dealing with those that do not neatly fit into categories. People want to classify other people and I find that often it is not in the hopes of understanding that person better, but in order to be able to project their pre-conceived notions of what certain labels mean or should mean -- whether for the ultimate purposes of bigotry or chauvinism (the flip side of bigotry, not as ugly), but still not constructive.
Having said the above, I make the following observations/opinions:
A Christmas tree is not the same as a crucifix. It's a green thing with lights and shiny things that is brought indoors in a time of darkness and dormancy. It has become a cultural symbol. Yes, it has roots in religion (but more pagan than Christian) -- but what doesn't? Shall we ban all the names of months and days of the week because they're named after gods? On the radio, I heard a leader of another religion talking about how Christian a Christmas tree is with the sap being the blood of Jesus Christ. I have NEVER heard of such a thing, although I'm sure you'll find some believers out there. But that's not the common understanding -- and he knows that.
Hanukkah (or however you'd like to spell it in English) is not the "Jewish Christmas." First, Christmas is not the central Christian holiday; Easter is. Christmas was created by popular demand for a birth holiday and to compete with previous (pagan) winter celebrations. Hanukkah is a minor post-biblical holiday. The primary Jewish holiday is the Sabbath (which, yes, occurs weekly), followed by the High Holy Days. Shoving a Hanukkah menorah next to a Christmas tree does nothing to promote understanding or to educate folks about the religious/cultural traditions of others.
Suggestion: In a public place, such as an airport, couldn't we have rotating displays -- throughout the year -- of different cultures and traditions?
Instead of promoting false equivalences, how about showcasing the uniqueness of each community and promoting better understanding? (And, yes, guidelines should be hammered out.)
It is not a crime to be a minority. Nor is it an offense to be in the majority. People in the majority should be respectful of those who are not. And those in the minority cannot expect those in the majority to wash themselves of all identity so as not to "offend." Let's just give an easy example: I don't expect male/female couples to hide their affection; it would be nice if I felt as comfortable holding my husband's hand in public without fear.
Well, now that I'm in for a penny, I'm in for a pound and I'll just continue to venture into shark-infested waters. I've had this idea for a post for the past month or so that I would call, "I'm not an atheist, but I play one in public."
I have always been attracted to, for lack of a better word, the spiritual. I believe that there are big questions and issues that are unknowable, that humans have often untapped capacity for good, that the whole can be more than just the sum of its parts. I don't think that any one culture or tradition has a monopoly on truth. That being said, there have been great people who have showed us glimpses of the best of humanity that do come from particular traditions and to separate them from their traditions is to not respect or understand them.
I think we need to judge people by their actions, how they treat other people, and not by their labels. (Don't get me wrong, organizations are very much on the hook for the ideas they promote and/or the lies they spread. And political parties are, by definition, about policy so backing one or another is about how people are treated.)
The scientific method is the best way we've come up with yet for exploring our natural world. Through science, we have greatly improved our lives. It doesn't answer questions of right and wrong; science is descriptive. What we do with the information is up to us.
When it comes to public policy in a pluralistic society/world, we have to stick with the tangible. There's no other way to get along. We need to look at how things affect people and the harm or help a policy will have on people. We'll never agree about the nature of things that we can't see and there's no point arguing; it only gets ugly and separates us further. I believe in the process of the scientific method. When it comes to public policy, I am an atheist.
But I don't like to apply that label to myself because it is not how I feel inside, it is not how I approach the world or the Big Questions. I'd really just like to be free to not know and to seek.
Those who claim to Know the Truth (such as by talking to God) scare me. Because, by definition, they can't be wrong in a debate. A scientific statement (one that is within the scope of the scientific method) is not one that can be proven true -- but one that can be proven false. That is, there is a way one could devise to show that this statement is incorrect if that's the case.
I've known a lot of people that have various approaches when it comes to religion or spirituality. Sometimes, they take on the labels of a particular tradition or practice. Sometimes, they lean one way or another, but shy from identification. Atheists. Agnostics. The people I respect have respect for others, care about others, do not demean others.
I'm uncomfortable giving religions a "free pass." One can't justify any behavior and say "that's my religion." One can't enslave others into compliance. I believe in a pluralistic society and we have to find a way to get along. Bringing religion into public policy debate is not helpful; it only serves to divide. Those kind of politics are about power, not the betterment of the community. And doing better and being better should be what it's all about, in my opinion. When it comes to public policy, we need to stick with the tangible. When it comes to someone's internal life, we shouldn't let that come between us; it's personal.
I don't know if this post is well-structured or coherent. But it feels good to get it out because I've been sitting on it for weeks now. To anyone who's made it through these ramblings ... well, I hope it hasn't been too arduous.
Peace.
posted by Daniel wbc at 12:48 PM
5 Comments:
I guess I have become a dreaded "Secular Humanist" that all the wingers are complaining about.
I believe it should be all or nothing when it comes to holidays in the public sphere. Whether 220 million or just 2,000 people celebrate a holiday is irrelevent to me, whether it is their highest holy day or a minor rememberance. If it is celebrated at the same time as other holidays, then it should be represented right along with the others.
What irratates me to no end is people who cannot simply celebrate their faith at their homes and houses of worship. Why aren't they enough for them?
The boy scouts case is a clear reason why I am forever grateful to the ACLU and secular ideals. The scouts fought to ban gays and athiests from their organization..and won, yet expect tax supported subsidies. You cannot have it both ways.
One of the reasons I was hesitant in writing this post was the fear that it would create divisions where I don't really see any. I'm not sure that we disagree on any issue except approach.
My bringing up any specifics of Christmas and Hanukkah was to point out my frustration. I want to learn about different traditions and know what they're about; when I hear this issue discussed, there's often a lot of stuff stated or implied (often, as you wrote, irrelevant to policy) that is simply not true. In a war, I guess it doesn't matter, as long as one side emerges victorious. But I have stupid dreams where people put down their weapons and actually try to understand one another.
"Secular Humanist" could be applied to me as well. But I'm not really embracing labels for myself at this time when it comes to religion or lack thereof. I feel pretty alienated from everyone.
I agree that the size of a minority does not affect the rights that they have and should not affect the respect we have. I also don't think that minorities should always be measured and defined by the majority; to me, it's not respectful.
I like public displays and celebrations (for example) of Mardi Gras, Chinese New Year and Halloween (all have religious origins and connotations). I would also like to know more about other cultures and traditions, as long as I'm not forced to worship and folks are not denigrating other folks.
Interestingly enough, militaristic and "patriotic" holidays often disturb me on some level because they sometimes slide into a kind of state worship.
I belong, and have belonged, to the ACLU for years. (By the way, they were late, as were other organizations such as Amnesty International and NOW, in recognizing LGBT/Queer rights as civil/human rights. Even good organizations need members who question and challenge.)
I have a huge bone to pick with the Boy Scouts. They spent a great deal of time and resources to fight for their right to be a private exclusive (discriminatory) organization. I believe in their rights to free speech, to associate, and to assemble. However, they should not enjoy special priveleges with government and public facilities as they have. They want to be private, be private.
The Boy Scouts, despite their very public bigotry and small-mindedness, still have a "squeaky-clean" image. I had a big argument with a non-profit organization that let Boy Scouts in uniform perform service on their behalf. (The event originated with the nonprofit, not the Boy Scouts, who were some among others.) I thought that the boys should be allowed to participate, but not in uniform representing the Boy Scouts, a discriminatory organization. (Would they allow the same for a group that didn't allow people of color?) My argument got nowhere.
I think it's ignorant that some people equate being an atheist with nihilism or satanism. (I've heard both -- Q-tips won't wash that out.) I also think it's ignorant when people think that religion means soft-headedness and bigotry.
I believe, very strongly, in the separation of church and state.
I don't think one can completely separate culture from religion. I am trying to suggest an approach that to me supports real education and understanding. I'm tired of a "war" that seems disrespectful and dishonest.
Don't worry Daniel, I believe we are far more in agreement on this issue.
I understand my approach just isn't feasible, if not down right impossible. I should have said if I were in charge that is the way I would want it to be. Your approach is far more realistic in the country we live in.
When my nephew wanted to join the scouts my bro and sis in law talked to me about it. I realize the Scouts are not all bad and told them so, but I wanted my nephew to know I am banned from their organization and that gay teenagers are as well. He did join for a time, but has since quit.
Oh and they get really pissed when I jokingly call their kid's CCD classes Cult School. LOL
One of my siblings is Roman Catholic and is rasing the children R.C. Sometimes I really struggle with that. I do know that the family is very supportive of Alan and me. My nieces have married gay unlces on both maternal and paternal sides of their family. So, on my better days, I believe that they will take the good stuff and leave the rest. Anyway, I try very hard to stay off the topic of religion.
Post a Comment
<< Home