The boycotters argue that when stores refer generically to "holidays" or "celebration," they are discriminating against Christians. They may even be neglecting a civic duty. The Liberty Council, associated with Falwell, says that stores which "discriminate against Christmas" will receive a letter reminding them that "Christmas is Constitutional," as well as a federal holiday.
Quite a turnaround, this. As long as I can remember, and probably long before, Christians have bemoaned the commercialization of Christmas, the appropriation of the feast of the Incarnation to aid in the accumulation of filthee lucre. Now the problem seems to be that the commercial establishment is ignoring Christmas The moneychangers have quit the temple, and so goes forth the cry of the righteous.
In a way, the de-emphasis of Christmas by retailers has helped accomplish what those opposed to its commercialization wanted. The name of the holiday is associated less with manic purchasing (although the purchasing continues). But that troubles some Christians, who feel excluded or diminished somehow if they aren't given pride of place in the annual year end buying binge, and in every other corner of the public square. Shopping may well be the essential act of civic participation in today's America, so perhaps some feel that if the Kingdom of God isn't at the mall, it might as well be nowhere at all.
As I've understood Christianity and tried to practice it, public acknowledgement of either corporate or private faith is irrelevant. Christianity grew up on the fringes of society, and I think that is where it still flourishes. Demanding the endorsements of governments, schools, and businesses bespeaks a dangerous and overbearing pride, and those behind the Friend of Foe campaign ought to know as well as anyone where that leads. If they really want to see Christ honored in this holiday season, let them feed the hungry, tend the sick, and champion the neglected.
Tags: Christmas; Religion; Shopping
No comments:
Post a Comment