Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Santa Claus as Swastika/Hammer and Sickle Message-ID: Date: 3 Jan 91 09:37:59 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Lines: 77 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article <18967@hydra.gatech.EDU> gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) writes: > >I was sent Dennis' original article that started this brewhaha; I'm glad >I waited to read this one..... > >In <28937@usc> kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes: >>We talk about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Yet in this >>country for the last generation, we have been forced to officially >>venerate Santa Claus, the Christmas tree and other symbols determined >>by the courts to be "non-offensive" ... even though when forcibly >>removed of religious root ... they offend many. > >Nobody's FORCING anybody to DO anything. But they are. The courts have declared that Santa is a "non-offensive" symbol of a "secular" Christ-mas. There is no discreet way therefore of escaping him in places like the public schools, etc. By anyone. This is what a Jewish group in LA has protested. What is ironic is that there is a good chance that Jewish religious protest (that Santa is still too closely tied to "Christian symbol") will succeed in driving Santa out of the public schools. It is ironic because the question of how Christians view the modern-day Santa who has been used in this past generation to hijack and rape a Christian feast day is not considered. But Santa is termed by definition to be "non-offensive" ... so why the cribbing? >The courts are PROHIBITING some things, but that's a little different. Right now, the courts have simply taken Christmas hostage. If we are talking about providing a secular feast day to celebrate the "giving of gifts", then we should begin by renaming the holiday and moving it off of Dec 25th. Macy's ultimately could give damn if Santa comes on Dec 25th or on Dec 21st (after-all that's what we keep hearing ... that the "multi- culturalness" of "Christmas" is in its "actual celebration" the Winter Solstice), or on perhaps the 4th Monday of December (as we do with virtually every other State holiday). There is nothing *sacred* about Dec. 25th ... **except** in the (western) Christian tradition. Keeping a secularized "Sharing of Gifts Day" (as part of a greater "Days of Winter" season) on Dec. 25th, is simply a power-play (the more so with keeping it being called "Christmas"), of State showing Church "who is boss" In the current scheme of things, Santa is something of a sugar-coated Stalin figure -- Ceasar in red with white trimming, a big nose and a funny hat. >YOU may promote your religion any way you like.... but, IMHO, the state >should neither promote nor discourage any religion at all. EXACTLY ... so let the State create a "multi-cultural" holiday of its own around that time (or perhaps not even around that time ... we could have a summer Santa come from the jungles of Brazil ... nice ecological feel to that idea huh? "Kids help Santa keep his summer home..."). And leave Christmas alone. If we want to celebrate winter ... there are plenty of *better* days/ways of doing it than doing it on Dec 25th (ie Dec 21st or the 4th Monday of December ... as I pointed out already). > >There is a big difference in a nation of religious freedom and a nation >where you are allowed to do what you want privately but somebody's pet >"One True Way" is officially promoted... But a "True" "politically correct" way is EXACTLY what the State is promoting now. You have to "love" Santa now. The schools are free to teach the Santa gospel to their pupils. And there is no defense, because the State has declared it "non-offensive" >The former is what, thank {insert appropriate name(s) here} we still have, >I think..... the latter is tantamount to the swastika Dennis alluded to, >but, time after time, what I hear Dennis' words saying he wants.... There is no reason why Christmas has to be hijacked and redefined by the State to promote "multiculturalness" ... A State sponsored "multicultural holiday" falling not necessarily on the 25th but around that time (if even that is necessary) would work just fine ... and preserve the integrity of the Christian religious feast day (for Christians to celebrate in peace without bothering anybody ... as Yom Kippur is celebrated for instance). dennis kriz@skat.usc.edu