Assorted Nativity Controversy Reflections

I haven't posted in a while and have been quite busy. Expect some content to come soon. Without further ado, I'm handing this in as an essay for my "The English Language" class. Enjoy!

Around this time last year, the floodgates of controversy opened and NEPA displayed itself as a spectacle of unequivocal idiocy, a display of a county-wide temper tantrum, as author Kenny Luck would put it. I didn't really know what I was getting into, but a simple blog post on December 13 and a letter sent to the courthouse from the ACLU would kindle a fire, possess a great deal of my time during finals week, and place a huge red target on my head. Although there were no direct death threats, I did receive after-death threats and threats phrased by masters of the English language that sounded like this: “shut your punk ass mouth, you bitch ass trick! Come down to room 300 and I'll punch your fat face in for Jee-sus!”

What merited all of this craziness, might you ask? In an area in which people “cling to their guns and religion,” as Obama mentioned, simply pointing out that a holiday display at the courthouse was favoring religion over non-religion and highlighting a Christian display that was illuminated by a giant floodlight at night was enough to make me what KRZ radio called “the third most hated person in Luzerne County.”

When I made my initial complaint against the nativity scene, I expected some backlash, but I did not expect Facebook to light up like a Christmas tree with constant notifications and E-mail, my King's E-mail to be flooded with messages, and local news networks going insane. I accepted some interviews and a photo shoot with the Citizens Voice and was quickly catapulted to the spotlight under Greg Skrepenak under the fold in the local newspaper. I wasn't hiding by any means – I took a very public stand for what was right and put my neck on the line. The most hurtful remarks by people charged me with cowardice for what I did. I don't see how cowardice can be a fitting adjective for me when I went public, went on television, welcomed discussion, opened my Facebook profile for others to post, accepted interviews, and consented to place my picture in various newspapers.

When I think about the controversy today, I would have done everything over again in almost the same way, but would have been more prepared to answer media questions and would have went on WILK Newsradio often to defend myself and be interviewed. I only knew about WILK after most of the drama had built up in the center of the volcano and exploded.

What people need to know and understand is that separation of church and state is something that everyone should desire. Former president John F. Kennedy had said that he believed in an absolute separation of church and state. When the government stays out of religion, everyone wins because no one is unfairly excluded and everyone is playing on a level field. If the government favors one religion, those of no religion or other religions are treated unfairly. We also have the issue of which sect to follow, who interprets the rules, and why exactly some groups receive funding and are highlighted while others are excluded.

I don't hate Christmas. I'm not anti-holiday. I'm not out waging the imaginary “War on Christmas” that Bill O' Reilly and his cohorts on FOX News Network have invented. Christmas is a holiday that is largely secular and celebrated for secular reasons. If you took the secular reasons out – meeting family, giving gifts, eating food – you have but a holiday that is like Ash Wednesday if you focus on Jesus...and that's quite lame. The roots of Christmas are largely Pagan and the holiday we have today is the product of various odd traditions that people don't know about such as wassailing, an event in which the poor would demand entry into the homes of rich people, that were changed due to the backlash of the rich. A rich author wrote a poem in which a poor person, instead of demanding entry into a rich home, gave gifts in small stockings. People then encouraged gift giving to children and over time, as Christmas was more and more materialistic, the old tree that was on a table got bigger as the gifts grew bigger and the stockings too, of course, got bigger.

Just like people don't know the history of Christmas, they also don't know their American history and how our nation operates. Amongst the hateful letters sent to me, some in paper, people implored me to leave the country and implied that the people can vote on anything they want and ignore whatever a minority of people said. We call this the tyranny of the majority and this simply doesn't happen in the United States. We can't, for example, vote that criminals should not get a fair trial just like we can't vote that nativities can be displayed in a manner in which they aren't integrated into a larger display of thematic unity. People also told me to “not look if I don't like it,” which is a grave misunderstanding of my stance. Surely this argument wouldn't hold up for streakers on the public square. Would the police take “don't look at me if you don't like it” as a response and simply ignore the streakers? People also stated that this is a “Christian nation” founded by Christians, but they couldn't possibly be more incorrect. The people who wrote our constitution were largely deistic (they believed in a higher power who created the universe but is not active in human affairs) and intentionally left God out of the constitution and the government because they knew that government and religion was a deadly mix.

Some interviews I had were quite favorable and allowed me to get my point across while some reporters seemed to be out for my head and, for some reason, asking officials at King's for my financial aid information! Instead of reporting news, some decided to draw my personal life into the mix and desired to unveil private information even though it had nothing to do with the story. Many people found it appalling that an atheist would attend a Catholic college and make a public stand that I did because they are undoubtedly bound by chains and shackled with the idea that people shouldn't criticize religion (even though this was a legal issues) or stand up as an atheist at a Catholic school. So what if I'm an atheist at a Catholic school? There are many other atheists here, but you just don't hear about them. There are also Wiccans, Muslims, and Jews! King's doesn't require a student to “sit down and shut up” if he/she is not Catholic and does not discriminate on admitting non-Catholic students. I chose King's largely because it was local, generous in the department of financial aid, and because they didn't require SAT scores. After my second year at King's, I ceased to believe in any gods, but I remained because I enjoyed the classes and could not afford to switch schools. Even amongst religious people, people don't choose King's [just because] it is a Catholic College. Many people I ask attend King's because of financial aid and location, just like me.

I made an effort to respond to every piece of criticism or support, but people still didn't understand what the issues were and just wanted to believe that their religion was being attacked for some reason. Great, I'm happy to “attack” it with open criticism and blogging and frequently do, but the nativity issue was a legal one, not a religious one. I certainly can't take away someone's ability to believe in any gods, worship, or put up decorations in their yards and don't want to. Keep the religion out of the government! At the end of the day, people made themselves look really foolish, proved my point that religious belief can lead to disastrous consequences and befuddle people, and I gained support. I also had a very public platform to speak from and was able to make people think, inspire like-minded thinkers, and get people thinking about issues whether they agreed or disagreed. Last Christmas was a good one. I lost many friends over this debacle, but they're welcome to go. If someone is going to cease talking to me and lambast me because of a legal issue in which I was right, I don't want to be friends with them anyway. Good riddance.

Christmas: A Brief History: (Turns out, Jesus is not the reason for the season) by Dr. David Kyle Johnson

All of the following text is from the research and work of Dr. David Kyle Johnson.

Pictures are from his more detailed Christmas paper found here.

Also found in the above linked paper are footnotes and other documentation/sources.

I'd love to post an original post about this, but I'm not very knowledgeable about Christmas history and Dr. Johnson would love to share his research with you :)

Also added below is a video from his Youtube channel!

Enjoy!

Christmas: A Brief History

(Turns out, Jesus is not the reason for the season.)

• Up to 30,000 years ago

  • The “wild man” was worshiped. He was a half-goat/half-man fertility/harvest deity that people thought came out of the wild as winter was setting in (late fall, when everything is dying), and it was only by his “death and resurrection” (which they enacted and later play acted) that spring would be ensured its return. (The more formal versions of this ritual would have been “more recent” (10,000 years ago)?)

• ca. 4000 Years ago (c.a. 2000 BCE)

  • Mesopotamia: The Zagmuk festival. Had their own way to ensure the return of spring. As winter set in, the King would have to die and descend into the underworld to help Marduk, their god, fight off the monsters of chaos (which he had to fight to create the world in the first place). Kings usually didn’t like to die, so they would appoint someone else (a criminal) as “King for a day” (or for a while), and then kill him so he could go help Marduk. When the battle was won, there were great celebrations—bonfires, parades in the streets, etc.

  • Persians and Babylonians: Sacaea. At the end of the year, in a big party, masters and slaves changed places, in a tradition of social inversion. One slave was selected as a “lord of misrule,” and his every whim was granted. In the king’s household, two criminals would be chosen—one set free, the other was “Mock-King” for a day, but then executed.

• Ca. 2500 years ago (ca. 500 BCE)

  • Roman Empire: Sacaea became Saturnalia (celebrated over many days, in late December). This was a celebration in the name of the Roman god Saturn, who was thought to be all about peace and equality. So the traditions of social inversions continued, and practices of (small) gift giving arose as well. But this was also the perfect time to party. The harvest was done, grains were fermenting into wine, and it was time to thin the herds by killing many of your animals (so you didn’t have as many animals to feed during the winter). With lots of alcohol, food, fresh meat, and no work to keep anyone busy—woah, boy—Saturnalia became a weeks long party, complete with drunkenness, feasting, sex and debauchery…you name it!

  • The Norse/Scandinavia: Festival of Yule (Jul).

    • Another late December celebration, that included lots of partying and drinking and bon-fires (Yule log).

    • It was also a time of blizzards, which (locked up in your houses) sounded like great armies trampling through the air. They believe that the dead of the last year had returned to earth, led in a “wild hunt” by the god Odin—a one eyed, white bearded warrior, riding an eight-legged white horse. (Such ideas would later influence Halloween as well.) Odin also bestows blessings on the faithful during this visit.

    • The Norse God Thor—pulled in his flying chariot by his flying goats, Nasher and Cracker (thunder and lightening)—is also a December visitor (and clearly a remnant of the wild man).

      They also light candles to scare away the sprits and set evergreen type plans in their house and around the doors. (As the only thing that stays green in winter, they signify the life of spring—plus, evil spirits will get caught in their needles.)

Skip this—We’ll come back to it at the end.

• 1900s

  

  • 1918 Gifts begin to be wrapped in fancy paper (not simply white tissue paper, or brown paper, as before).

  • 1923 - First National Christmas tree on the South Lawn of the White House.

  • Coca-Cola solidifies Santa’s look—a Coca-Cola red fur suit, with white cuffs in 1931. (Pepsi tries, but loses that battle.)

  • 1933 - First Rockefeller Christmas tree.

  • 1939 - FDR moves Thanksgiving to make a longer holiday shopping season.

  • Rudolf is added to the reindeer in a “children’s book marketing scheme” by Montgomery Ward in 1939.

  • Mid -1900’s The song, “I’m Dreaming of a White Christmas” becomes super popular, and spawns many movies and versions.

  • Many other movies and such commercialize on Christmas, but almost none of them are religious.

  • Ca. 1985, David Kyle Johnson figures out that there is no Santa by getting his sister to admit she was present when one his gifts from Santa was purchased.

• 0-100 CE (The Nativity Story)

  • Between 15 BCE and 15 CE is a decent estimate of when Jesus would have been born.

  • 50’s CE – A Jew named Paul writes epistles about a man/god named Jesus, but mentions no details of his life besides his death, resurrection and last supper.

  • 70’s CE - A gospel is written, under the name “Mark,” but it has no mention of Jesus’ birth.

  • 80’s CE – Two more gospels are written, under the names “Mathew” and “Luke.” Because of disputes about when Jesus acquired his divine status, they both depict Jesus’ birth—but they were written separately, have little in common and contradict each other on major points.

    • Non-common elements:

      • Matthew: Herod, wise-men, slaughter of innocents, star, angel appears to Joseph.

      • Luke: angel appears to Mary, census, shepherds, host of angels, inn and manger, temple presentation.

    • Contradictions:

      • Location: Matthew’s story starts in Bethlehem (they live there), the family flees to Egypt because of Herod’s threat, then they move to Nazareth. Luke’s story starts in Nazareth (they live there), they have to go to Bethlehem for a census, then they go right back to Nazareth.

      • Time period: Matthew has Herod ruling (he died in 6 BCE). Luke has Quirinius as governor of Syria (he began his rule in 6 CE).

    • Common elements: Parents names (Joseph and Mary), virgin conception, born in Bethlehem, story ends in Nazareth.

      • The common elements make it seem that there was at least an oral history of Jesus birth beforehand, that included these facts. However,

        • Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark and Jesus’ mother is named “Mary” in Mark.

        • Mark also says that Jesus was from Nazareth, and OT prophecies place the birthplace of the messiah in Bethlehem.

        • Mathew specifically says that the virgin conception fulfilled Isaiah 7:14; it’s likely Luke got the idea from there too.

          • (They were both using a Greek version of the OT that mistranslated the Hebrew word “young girl” to the Greek word for “virgin.”)

        • The only thing that can’t be easily explained is how they agreed on Joseph’s name.

          • (However, Joseph was a common name and the name of one of Mary’s children in Mark.)

    • Other problems:

      • No census ever required relocation, much less one based on ancestral relations tracing back 1000 years.

      • No record of a census under Caesar Augustus.

      • No record of a slaughter of innocents by Herod in Bethlehem.

      • A star that “leads” and stops over a specific house doesn’t make much sense.

        • By the way, the magi would have not arrived until at least 2 years after Jesus birth.

• 200-312 CE

  • Romans: A new religion, that worships the sun god, Sol Invictus, becomes popular. It eventually merges with worship of Mithras (another sun god). It is celebrated by Roman elite and soldiers. The sun god’s birthday (which calls for an even bigger party) is on what they believed to be the solstice—the day they thought the “daytime” started getting longer—Dec 25^th. (Their solstice was off by a couple days.)

  • Early Christians: do not celebrate their own birthdays, much less the birth of Jesus. That is what pagans, like Herod and pharaohs do.

    • A few dates are proposed for Jesus birth. Only one person places it on Dec 25^th (because he thought Jesus was conceived on March 25^th). Others suggest Dec 6th; everyone else knows better because shepherds don’t “watch their flocks by night” in December. But nobody really cares about celebrating it, so nothing really sticks.

  • However, they care about the story itself and filled in more of the details by looking at other non-canonical gospels written at the time and by looking at (and misinterpreting) the OT. Other parts of the story that develop during this time:

    • An ox and donkey at the manger (Isa 1:2-3)

    • The magi are kings and travel by camel (Isa 60)

    • Mary’s perpetual virginity (Protoevangelium of James)

      • Joseph was an old man and widower who married Mary, but already had kids of his own and did not sleep with her. This explains why Jesus has brothers in Mark, but Mary never had sex.

    • Virgin birth (which is different from virgin conception. Virgin birth retains the integrity of Mary’s nether-regions. Jesus just “appears.”) (Protoevangelium of James)

      • A disturbing part of the story is that Salome—a friend of the midwife that Joseph got to help out with the birth—won’t believe. “Unless I put forward my finger and test her condition, I will not believe that a virgin brought forth.” After the “test,” God withers her hand for her disbelief, but restores it when she repents. (A handy part of the story to add, if you want people to believe it.)

    • Mary’s Parents (Joachim and Anne), Mary on donkey to Bethlehem, manger was in a cave (Protoevangelium of James)

    • Jesus tames dragons and (from the womb) makes a cherry-tree bow (so Mary can have its fruit) in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.

• 312-ca.500

  • 312 – Constantine converts to Christianity, declares it the state religion of the Roman empire, and sets out to solidify Christian doctrine.

    • One problem, however, is that most of the elite and his army belong to Mithraism. They are not going to just convert straight over—and they certainly are not going to give up their big winter festival Saturnalia, or stop celebrating Mithra’s birthday on Dec 25^th. So Constantine tries to “Christianize” the holidays—it’s okay to celebrate, because it’s officially in the name of Jesus. “Whatever, as long as we get to party” say the people—and the partying, drunkenness, feasting and sex continued. (Christianity has been trying to make the holiday “purely religious” every since, but it never really has worked and the pagan aspects of the holiday continued unabated.)

  • Christianity appropriates many other aspects of sun worship (that’s where “the halo” comes from).₉

  • December 25^th is labeled as Jesus birthday around 340.

  • Dec 6^th becomes Epiphany (recognizing the arrival of the Magi), hence the 12 days of Christmas.

  • Popular recognition of celebrating (not just recognizing) the holiday increases through 500 CE.

  • The Norse god Odin becomes more important in Norse religion, becoming their main god, even taking on some of Jesus’ properties (crucified, rose, etc.).

• 500-1500: Just as Christianity appropriated aspects of sun worship, as it rolls through Europe it appropriates the festivals, traditions and beliefs of the pagans it finds to facilitate conversion.

  • Norse lights, evergreen plants, Yule logs, etc., become part of the December celebrations.

  • Most pagan gods are turned into saints. (Pagans won’t stop praying to them, so they either get saint’s names, or their powers go to existing saints.)

  • St. Nicholas?

    

    • He may or may not have existed. (If he did, all we know about his life is that he was born in the port city of Myra (Turkey) in about 270.)

    • He may have received his name from a Germanic god “Hold Nickar” (or just be that god with a saintly name), and some version of the wild man “claus.”

    • The sea-faring miracles attributed to him mirror those of Poseidon and Neptune.₁₀ (The sea-farers of Myra were probably told to pray to him instead of these gods).

    • Other stories about Nicholas’ generosity multiply, but it’s hard to trace their origins.₁₁ They probably evolved to explain the gift-giving traditions that will develop about him later.

    • At some point, he merges with the Norse god Odin—and he is soon believed (by some, at least) to have a white beard₁₂ and ride a white horse₁₃ and, as he returns from heaven to bestow gifts to the faithful, on the anniversary of his death, Dec 6^th. Children would leave their shoes outside the window or door for St. Nicholas to leave small gifts in., after he had interrogated them about their religious lessons. (Hay for the horse would also be left.)

    • The first gifts are given in St. Nicholas’ name in the 1100’s by French nuns, but punishment was a big part of his job too.

      

  • St. Nicholas helpers.

    • Do you remember the old half goat/half man “wild man” fertility/harvest deity? Well, people were still worshiping him. And he wouldn’t quite do as a saint. So the church made him off-limits by equating him with Satan—and from then on, Satan was a half-goat man with cloven feet, goat horns, a pitchfork, tail, etc. (Before this, he was depicted as a blond hair blue-eyed (fallen) angel.) _14,15

    • To “depose him,” some also made the wild-man St. Nicholas’ slave. He would travel with St. Nicholas and if you were bad, it would be the wild-man’s job to punish you. He came in many different forms over the years (and many times appeared without St. Nicholas).

      • Krampus: Covered with fur and possessing one cloven foot, if you were bad, Krampus would whip you with birch rods or his whip. He also had a bottomless sack, in which he could stuff as many kids as he needed…and carry them off to hell.

        

        

        

      • Black Peter: An impish black faced Spaniard, Black Peter was St. Nicholas’ companion in the Netherlands during Spanish rule. They would arrive on a boat from Spain every Dec 6^th.

      • Knecht Ruprecht, who sometimes visits alone, first appeared in Germany (I think—these things are hard to track down).

        

  • Old Nick (Hold Nickar?)

    • In the middle ages, St. Nicholas’ main job was punishment. His visit, with threats of punishment if you did not obey the laws of the church, was a very handy way to keep people in line—and a very handy way for parents to keep their children in line.

    • He knew who was to be punished or rewarded by borrowing St. Peters book of life.

    • In many places, he was not well liked. According to the Norse, evil was not from “down low”—but up North, where everything is nasty and cold. It wasn’t long before they thought the North Pole—the northern most place—is where Nicholas lived. This is probably when his white horse turned into reindeer. (He was also known to subdue other animals as well.) (The Laplanders could have been an influence on this too.)

    • Some thought his animals pulled him in a flying chariot, like Thor. (This may be when Nasher and Cracker became “Dunder and Blixem”)

    • Some people threatened to lock their doors and windows to keep him out. But he is so resolute, he was willing to come down the one place you couldn’t lock up to get you—your nasty, soot filled, chimney! (The Laplanders could have been an influence on this too.)

    • Old Nick even became another name for Satan. (The Saint and “wild-man” versions of the gift giver became nearly interchangeable.)

  • The holiday is first called “Christmas,” in honor of the Midnight church service held in honor of Jesus’ birth on Dec 24^th, called “Christ’s Mass,” about 1100.

  • But the “party” elements of Christmas never go away. In fact, conversion of pagans was difficult because they knew that Christians in Rome were still partying it up in December.

• 1500’s

  • 1510 - First reference to a Christmas tree in Germany. It is rooted in the evergreen tradition of the Norse, and the trees are small (usually the top of a fir tree) and set up on a table. It is probably influenced by the medieval “paradise tree”—a tree, decorated with apples, for paradise plays about Adam and Eve in the middle ages. It could also be influenced by the German Lichstock.

  • The Christmas tree tradition remains highly localized throughout Germany and is NOT popular nationwide.

• 1600-1700s

  • The St. Nicholas tradition is still big with the Catholic Dutch and exists in other places.

  • But Protestants begin to immigrate to the American Colonies, leaving Catholic saints behind, including St. Nicholas.

  • In America, the Pennsylvania Germans merge St. Nicholas and Krampus into “furry Nicholas”—Belsnickel. Black, and dressed in fur, Belsnickel will show up at your house, wearing bells and either begging or offering gifts. He will throw nuts and candy on the floor for the kids, but whip them on the backs as they scramble to get it.

    

  • Belsnickle in action!

    But the Puritans hate Christmas. They realize that it is rooted in pagan traditions, and also hate the fact that it is pretty much a giant secular party (drinking, food, and sex) with no religious connotations.

    • In New England they make illegal its practice, making it illegal to give the day off work or even hold a church service, in their communities.

    • In Europe, attempts are made to replace St. Nick by moving the holiday visit to Christmas, and replacing him with “the Christ Child” (Kristkringle). (It doesn’t really stick, and soon St. Nick and the Christ Child are at the door..later St. Nicholas takes on Kristkringle’s name.)

  • But they are never successful in stamping it out, and Christmas finds a resurgence by the end of the 1700s as the puritans lose power.

• 1800s

  • Christmas celebration in the early 1800s is highly secular—drinking, sex, parades…and wassailing.

  • Wassailing was a practice of “social inversion” that survived from the ancient traditions. The poor and rich would trade places. Masters would open their house to their servants, and the servants could come in and demand their best food and drink in exchange for a song of well wishing. This helped maintain the social hierarchy (as a safety valve).

    • We wish you a merry Christmas is a wassailing song.

    • The practice was common between slaves and their masters in the Antebellum South through the civil war,

    • “Boxing Day” (where officers trade places with enlisted men) is still an English military tradition.

  • As immigration and poverty increased, wassailing ceased being a safety valve and became a form of protest. The poor would show up at wealthy estates, demanding entrance, food and drink. If refused, they might throw rocks or worse. (Think of Halloween.) Bands of rowdy unemployed poor going through the wealthy parts of town, waking everyone up, were common. Especially in New York, being rich at Christmas was not fun.

  • Rich New Yorkers crusaded to “domesticate” Christmas celebrations. John Pintard and Washington Irving introduced a punishing St. Nicholas to New York, and stories and poems circulated about him.

  • Probably written originally by Henry Livingston (of German descent), a poem “A Visit From St. Nick” starting appearing anonymously in newspapers around Christmas in 1823. A rich New Yorker, Clement Clarke Moore, was probably behind much of its publication and claimed authorship in 1836. The poem was based loosely in the Dutch tradition, but changed many things and added many others.

    • Nicholas is a Saint in name only. He is “defrocked--a lower class peddler, dressed completely in fur (no saintly garb).

      • His stump of a pipe indicates his class.

        

    • He only comes to bring gifts—no punishment. He is miniature (an elf), as are his sleigh and reindeer.

    • He has eight reindeer, and they each have a name. He comes on Christmas (not Dec 6^th).

    • (Notice also that the protagonist is worried about wassailers, and St. Nick only places gifts in stockings, and there is no Christmas tree.)

  • Because it changes the focus from the poor to “your own children,” the rich elite embrace the poem and begin to trick their children into believing St. Nick will bring them gifts on Christmas Eve. Almost immediately, people think they are participating in an age old Dutch tradition—when, in fact, nearly every part of it is brand new and not Dutch at all. St. Nick’s Dutch name, Sinter Klass, soon changes to “Santa Claus,” and the “tradition” eventually catches on in all classes.

  • The first Christmas tree is seen in a German Pennsylvania home in the 1810s. The Christmas tree tradition reaches Berlin in the 1820’s, and abounds in Germany in the 1830s. Literature including the Christmas tree tradition circulates. Ironically people see it as a way to deal with their already present concerns about “spoiling children” with Christmas gifts. (It presented a way to control gift distribution, and many Christmas tree stories depicted children giving gifts to parents.) The Christmas tree beings to catch on in America around the 1830s.

  • In England, Charles Dickens revives interest in Christmas and changes the way it is celebrated, with “A Christmas Carol.”

  • Business and corporations realize the profits that all this gift giving can bring, and they promote and exploit the holiday celebrations every way they can.

  • 1850s. Santa starts appearing in stores, and Christmas Trees are sold commercially.

  • Mid – 1800s - Scandinavian writers such as Thile, Toplius, Rydberg transformed the image of Scandinavian house gnomes to Christmas elves that are eventually associated with Santa.

  • The Santa and Tree traditions merge and soon St. Nick has to leave presents in stockings and on the tree.

  • Soon the gifts are too big and they go under the tree. As gift size and number increase, the tree moves to the floor and keeps getting bigger and bigger.

  • Older social obligations to give to the poor are fulfilled by giving to organized charities (instead of beggars), and many concentrate on children alone.

  • Thomas Nast depicts Santa as a full grown, rotund person in 1881.

    

  • 1889 - Mrs. Claus, Santa's wife, is added to the story by Katherine Lee Bates in the poem “Goody Santa Claus On A Sleigh Ride”

  • 1891 – Benjamin Harrison places the first Christmas tree in the White House (calling it “old fashioned”).

    

A Soul Mate? One Right Person? Nope.

There are more fish in the sea!

I try to "pick my battles" on Facebook and generally ignore many posts concerning God made by theists. People might post things like "everything happens for a reason, God has a plan." I let it pass. I certainly also ignore comments such as "x is with God now" when people die. That's simply good form.

Recently, a college friend of mine posted the following status on Facebook:

Feel like ill never be happy :( and its probably the most hurtful feeling ever to wakeup and realize your the only one god didnt create a soulmate for <\3

I felt a need to respond to this claim because I wanted to make her feel better and help her realize that it's irrational to believe that there is only "one right person" because she's been beating herself up about this for quite a while. She's aware that I'm an atheist and we've had conversations about belief in the past. She knows I'm public about my non-belief and that I'm all about skepticism.

I responded:

I'll try to keep my response short.

There is no such thing as a "right person" or a "designated person" (not to mention there is no such thing as God or a soul). If you're going to live under the assumption that there is a "right person" or someone you are "destined to be with," you're going to sink in cognitive quicksand very easily. There are many, many, many people in the world that we meet merely by accident. Who are your friends? The people you happen to meet. There's a reason why most of your friends aren't people from high schools in Alaska...you've simply never been there.

We can try to salvage the concept of a "right person" and think of people as compatible or incompatible. But when you really start to think about it, you'll be compatible with hundreds, if not thousands, of people whether they are in relationships or not. If we were placed in different areas, we're just bound to find compatible people.

There's a very important and relevant principle in Social Psychology called the Propinquity Effect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propinquity]. We happen to like those around us and are more likely to like those who we live near to, sit next to, etc. We're simply more likely to form relationships with people we encounter more often.

Also, while it may suck being single, I would wager that you're better off single than with someone who you're incompatible with. Overall happiness also shouldn't rest on whether or not you're in a relationship. There are, of course, many other factors. Keep looking and don't settle for mediocrity.

My critique didn't even focus on her belief in the supernatural (she knows I don't believe in any supernatural claims anyway, so what would be new?). I tried to help her by explaining that she can be compatible with many people and soon find a like-minded person. I used what I've been learning in psychology classes and my internship paired with some common sense to make her feel better and think rationally about her situation.

If someone's going to live with unsubstantiated assumptions and impossible expectations (God made one specific person for me to be with), he/she really will be disappointed. Say, for example, you expect to be a professional Chess player and you get very mad because you're losing to novice computers. You think that you could master the game in a month...and don't. A friend should tell you, "You can't master Chess in a month. It takes a great deal of time to reach the level of grandmaster. You'll lose along the way. Don't beat yourself up."

How is the Chess situation and the "God made a soul mate for me" situation any different? Friend should help friends and people shouldn't get mad for this. I explained my stance to her and hopefully she understands...or will better understand after seeing this blog post. My critique of her status wasn't me bashing her, trying to "take away her God belief," or anything else other than "Don't beat yourself up, there are lots of people who you can be compatible with."

Intolerance of Gays at King's College

I had quite an "encounter" at work tonight. For those of you who don't know, I work at a campus restaurant that stays open until 2AM on Friday and Saturday. Many drunk students come in after 10PM and order greasy food. People are usually not hostile. Students sometimes make messes or are very loud. No big deal.

Tonight, while I was away from the lobby area, a student told my lesbian co-worker that she was going to burn in Hell for being gay. I soon found out about this when she was obviously disgruntled after walking away saying things like, "Wow, that guy was an asshole." After confirming who uttered this phrase to her, I confronted the person and asked him why he was making intolerant statements to my co-worker. He first denied saying anything and then said, "I was just trying to reason with her." My manager told him that he had to leave and directed me to leave the lobby (she later said that she didn't want any problems). The student started saying, "Are you joking me? I'm getting kicked out because of a lesbian," followed up with "You wanna take this outside" to my lesbian co-worker" and left.

Unfortunately, I was not able to have a conversation with this person, intellectually demolish him, and make him aware of his ridiculous belief system and his hateful God, but it was nice that he got kicked out for his behavior. People like this need to be called out for their bad behavior and quickly identified in front of their peers and others in the area. Sadly, no person who was sitting with him said anything to him about his hateful comments, but I'm glad I was there to call him out after the fact. I also wasn't able to get his name, either, but he was from the King's College football team*. I wasn't quite sure if he was drunk, but this doesn't matter. Drunk or sober, people shouldn't make hateful comments toward gays and flaunt their hateful beliefs.

King's students, from my experience, usually aren't hateful to gays. Most people understand that people with different sexual orientations exist and tolerate or accept them, but there are still straggling theists who think that an all-loving God whom they worship will send people to be punished for eternity simply because they are attracted to people of the same sex or both sexes. Sorry, I'm not going to tolerate that nonsense and just be quiet.

Near the beginning of the semester, a Knights of Columbus member* was mad at me because I wanted their group removed from campus for grossly violating the school's policy of non-discrimination (Student clubs and organizations must adhere to all college policies and regulations. The organization must not discriminate on membership based on race, religion, gender, physical disability, or sexual orientation (emphasis mine)). He claimed that the Q&A Club [Gay Straight Allianceish club] at King's is only for "fags who like hairy buttholes" while I was in a cafeteria. Sadly, many others who were sitting at the table with him were not phased by this and simply sat there.

The Knights of Columbus at King's College, as I previously discussed in a blog post, only allow "practicing male Catholics 18 years of age or older who are in union with the commandments of God and the Holy See" to join their club. Shame on them and shame on King's. If any student wanted to make a Muslim-only club, a Hindu-only club, or anything else that is similar, it would never be allowed. I tried to make a club for atheists (in which theists were welcome) and King's declared it to be "against the mission statement of the college."

People who are intolerant of gays and make hateful comments need to be called out. We shouldn't just stand by while people make comments like these and let the intolerance slide. Raise awareness. Educate people. Gay or straight, everyone should be against intolerance of gays.

I'll close with great lyrics from a favorite song of mine, Cry for the Moon by Epica. Religion doesn't give you a cover to stand behind to excuse hateful comments.

Follow your common sense
You cannot hide yourself
behind a fairytale forever and ever
Only by revealing the whole truth can we disclose
The soul of this bulwark forever and ever
Forever and ever

* As previously mentioned in this post and some others like, "Painting All Catholics With the Same Brush," all Catholics and members of specific groups don't all think alike. Members in a group have all sorts of different beliefs. All Knights of Columbus members at King's College certainly don't endorse this line of thinking. His statement does not count as official doctrine(?) of his group.

All King's football players obviously don't think that all gays should burn in Hell and that they can be "reasoned with."

Thinking that one person's statement or action is representative of the beliefs or desires of an entire group is extremely fallacious thinking.

This may differ, though, when leaders of organizations release official statements or make stances. Leaders can make the organization look very bad, but this still doesn't mean that all members think the same way or endorse this behavior. If the organization, though, stands for some principles like "gay marriage is harmful to society and should be opposed" or "black people are inferior people" members are endorsing this message by being a member of the group. You can't just join the Knights for the free donuts, free coffee, and the krafts and kookie baking at konventions (see what I did there?).

Hate Mail - Haiti LTE

After publishing my recent letter to the editor regarding the local church sending stained glass windows and chandeliers to a church in Haiti, I got some hate mail. I love when people prove my point that religion is very harmful and can warp moral priorities. Sometimes, I don't have to go any further than my inbox!

To The Atheist:

One thing you don't understand about donation is that most of that money is still in your government. When they pledge a fund does not mean they pay it to the country. They use those funds to cover payroll and other cost for personnel living in that country. The hospital boat that's in Haiti is a perfect example of that. You think every one on that boat is working for free. You think the food,supplies and all other cost are free. This is how your government spends money that they pledge to other countries. Most of the countries who pledge have not yet given a dime to Haiti, because they claim they don't trust the Haitian government and I agree with them to some extent. Please don't blame people who are trying to send religious statues for the people. Maybe faith is the only thing they can rely on. Your penny may not save their lives at the end, God will decide.

My Response:

"One thing you don't understand about donation is that most of that money is still in your government. When they pledge a fund does not mean they pay it to the country. They use those funds to cover payroll and other cost for personnel living in that country."

Let's not give money because maybe it won't ALL get there? Of course there are administrative costs and such, but if you donate it to a good charity, the money gets maximized and as much as possible is given to the people. Let's say 90% of the money goes to people. Great, this is still better than chandeliers and stained glass going to a church. I'm sure that you wouldn't cease giving to charities here in the US because not all of the money would go to people. If everyone had this mindset, no one would give.

According to this charity, [http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/] "every penny" goes to Doctors Without Boarders.

"The hospital boat that's in Haiti is a perfect example of that. You think every one on that boat is working for free. You think the food,supplies and all other cost are free. "

I never made any of these claims.

"This is how your government spends money that they pledge to other countries. Most of the countries who pledge have not yet given a dime to Haiti, because they claim they don't trust the Haitian government and I agree with them to some extent."

I'm not talking about giving to the Haitian government. I'm suggesting giving to organizations within Haiti.

"Please don't blame people who are trying to send religious statues for the people. Maybe faith is the only thing they can rely on."

They can have faith without statues, stained glass, and chandeliers. I'm sure, though, that they can rely on family, friends, drinking water, food, medicine, etc. All of these things are infinitely more important. In my letter, I also suggested that they donate money and then build a modest church.

How is God reliable, anyway, when he hasn't even been demonstrated to exist? ...and if he does exist, an all-loving God certainly wouldn't stand by and watch Haiti be devastated by an earthquake/design a universe with an earthquake.

"Your penny may not save their lives at the end, God will decide."

This is a big problem with your religious views. What if there is no "end" where "god will decide?" We need to focus on the certain life that we have now instead of focusing on the next possible life that is very improbable.

Times Leader Letter to Editor 12/4/10

I submitted the following letter to the editor that was published [without my serial commas].

Reader believes Haiti needs money, not pews

A recent article, “Passing on spirit,” featured members of an area church shipping religious-themed items such as stained-glass windows, chandeliers, an organ and pews to a church in Haiti.

As the article mentions, members think this is a wonderful way to help Haitians. Youths said this action is a “good deed.” I disagree.

Haiti has been plagued with earthquakes, a great deal of civil and political unrest, poverty and a recent cholera outbreak. It is one of the worst places to live at the moment.

In times of great peril and the need for humanitarian efforts, religious items shouldn’t be a first concern or even a concern at all. If you’re going to help the Haitians, you should send monetary donations to the American Red Cross efforts in Haiti, Doctors Without Borders or another charitable organization.

Readers might think, “Well, what are you doing to help Haiti?” But if you do so, you’re missing my point and committing an ad hominem fallacy. My argument here is that this church community’s moral priorities are out of whack.

Instead of shipping these religious items, they should have sold the items and donated the money to charity. They could have even sent money to build a modest church (without stained glass and chandeliers) and given the rest to a charity to help Haitians.

Justin Vacula Co-organizer and spokesperson NEPA Freethought Society Wilkes-Barre

-----

For more detail on this story, please view my previous post.

Are We Better Off Without Religion?: Essay

I recently finished an essay for my philosophy class tackling various issues relating to the dangers of religion. Is it morally defensible to be religion? Are We Better off Without Religion? Is religion to blame for many evils done "in its name?" It was very difficult to limit this paper to three pages, but without further ado, my essay:

Religion is often a force for great evil, moral confusion, sexual repression, and a catalyst for uncritical thinking. We need not look at many of what would consider to be the “extremes” of religion such as suicide bombers, the Westboro Baptist Church, or Spanish Inquisitions to arrive at this conclusion. Almost exclusively because of religious beliefs, various religious leaders(and laypersons) have misled people into thinking that abortion is murder of a child and it should be illegal. Members of the Knights of Columbus have marched in the Philippines in an attempt to ban governmental distribution of contraceptives. Religious organizations have funneled millions of dollars into a massive campaign against gay marriage. Parents and priests teach their children that they may burn in Hell if they misbehave. Religion leads many to unhealthy sexual repression. Religion sneaks its nose into politics and tries to enforce laws based on religious beliefs instead of concerns of everyone. As Voltaire once said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Religious belief obviously has dire consequences. Beliefs inform actions and actions can harm others. We don't live in vacuums where no one else is effected by what we think and do.

Religious people often claim that while religion may appear to be responsible for a great deal of harm in the world, religion leads many to do great things. People who commit atrocities in the name of religion, they might say, are misinterpreting religion. Perhaps, one might think, religion is like a gun in which if you use it in the wrong manner, people can be harmed... as the old adage goes “Guns don't kill people, people kill people.”

Atheists would argue that all the good that can be had from religion can be had more honestly without religion and the added negative baggage from religious belief. “Who can declare what the proper interpretation of religion is,” the atheist should say. Isn't the whole name of the game to be open to interpretation? How can we only claim that someone is interpreting wrong when they do harm? Religion is very much unlike a gun because a gun is simply a vehicle to do harm while religions provide ideas and profess that such ideas are mandated by a divine authority. People don't do harm because they have a gun, but rather deal harm because of ideas they have.

I will argue that religious belief is not morally defensible. To defend my conclusion, I will argue that all good that can be had without the extra harm religion can bring about, there is a logical connection from religious commitments to harm, and that religious belief can warp one's moral concerns.

Religious persons often point to many good things that religion can bring about such as soup kitchens, hospitals, charity efforts, etc. All of these efforts can be had without referencing a deity or being religious. Non-believers, just like believers, participate in volunteer work and give to charity. The unfortunate consequences of some religious-based organizations and efforts is “selective charity.” Some groups that provide for the common good tend to exclude homosexuals, for example. Many Catholic charities have closed their doors because they refuse to provide services for homosexuals (Beckford). Some groups have gone as far as to almost blackmail cities that intend to pass gay marriage (Boorstein and Craig). The motivation for Catholic groups to exclude homosexuals is clearly religious as indicated in both articles. Charities operate under the banner of “helping everyone” instead of “helping everyone who isn't homosexual or the son or daughter of a homosexual parent or couple.” We should prefer to have charitable organizations that do not discriminate. If we can have all of the good without religion, why bother with religion?

Theists may say that people only use religion to mask bad behavior, thus religion isn't actually the cause for the bad behavior. While this statement may be true in some cases – perhaps racists used the Bible to justify slavery even though they didn't actually believe in God – it is not in all. If we take away the religious explanation for behavior in many cases, the harm would not make any sense whatsoever. Consider a recent statement from John Shimkus (R-IL), “"The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood. I do believe that God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect" (Dolan). Would a statement like this make any sense whatsoever if God was taken out of the picture? Only a severely delusional person can believe that the earth will never end. The atheist can also look at a statement like this and say, “If this man didn't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, a statement like this would never be uttered” and would be correct whether or not the statement would make any sense without religious belief.

Religious beliefs can easily warp one's moral priorities. People can act on beliefs of an afterlife and greatly devalue this life because they think there is another one. People can also believe that getting into Heaven is the most important goal and sideline other important moral concerns, ostracize family members who don't believe in God, and have many moral priorities that are out of whack. The Catholic Church, for example, considers stopping gay marriage, stopping abortion, stopping the ordination of women, and opposing stem cell research to be amongst its highest moral concerns because they think that God wants them to do these things.

It's important to note that with or without religion, we are still going to have evil in this world, but we would have less evil if religion were to go away. Places of worship can be converted into meeting places and homeless shelters. Former believers can still band together and do great things. People can still take moral lessons from religions and apply them to their lives. No longer would we have such a mass of unsubstantiated beliefs and the idea that faith is admirable. A post-religious society can be had in which people demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims and do good just for the sake of doing good. Without religion, we can still come to the conclusion that we should help others, make this world a great place to live in, and respect other human beings. Millions are good without God. If religion is needed for good, theists should be able to answer Christopher Hitchens' challenge, “Name one moral action or statement that a religious person can make that can't be made by a non-believer.” It is very clear that religion is not needed for good and we are better off without it.

Works Cited

Beckford, Martin. "The Telegraph." Last Catholic adoption agency faces closure after Charity Commission ruling. Telegraph Media Group Ltd., 19 Aug 2010. Web. 3 Dec 2010.

Craig, Tim, and Boorstein, Michelle. "The Washington Post." Catholic Church gives D.C. Ultimatum. The Washington Post, 12 Nov 2009. Web. 3 Dec 2010.

Dolan, Eric. "God won’t allow global warming, congressman seeking to head Energy Committee says." The Raw Story, 11 Nov 2010. Web. 3 Dec 2010.