Anti-Semitic Defense of Christmas: Christian Privilege & Supremacism in America

Is there an anti-semitic element to the Christian Right's 'defense' of Christmas? It's certainly plausible, given how Jews are so often the target of Christian frustrations throughout history. Jews always seem to be behind efforts to undermine Christianity and replace it with some sort of secular, socialist, or otherwise immoral system.

Michelle Goldberg writes:

On November 17th, as the invaluable website Media Matters documented, Fox News anchor Gibson, author of “The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought,” appeared on Christian radio host Janet Parshall’s show. (Parshall, incidentally, is the host of the hagiographic documentary “George W. Bush: Faith in the White House” and, under Bush, has been an American delegate to the United Nations). People who follow the “wrong religion,” said Gibson, “We know who they’re going to have to answer to.” But in the meantime, he said, “[A]s long as they’re civil and behave, we tolerate the presence of other religions around us without causing trouble, and I think most Americans are fine with that tradition.”

Goldberg finds similarly ugly echoes of overt anti-Semitism in the rantings of Bill O’Reilly who continually complains about plots against Christianity by “moneymen” and leftists, all of whom are participating in a grand conspiracy.

In fact, this sounds more like dhimmi tradition than the American one, in which Jews and Christians in Muslim countries were allowed to practice their religion as long as they submitted to their Islamic rulers and recognized their subservient status. That’s the version of tolerance many on the Christian right seem to be espousing lately. Non-Christians don’t have to convert, they just have to know their place.

As much as I have written about efforts to restore Christian privilege in America, I hadn’t made the connection between this and the tradition among Muslims that in a Muslim state, non-Muslims officially have a second-class status. They are free to worship, but not to proselytize and not to get out of line. This really isn’t too different from the attitude of so many on the Christian Right in America today.

John McKay writes:

Gibson’s statement that “as long as they’re civil and behave, we tolerate the presence of other religions around us” is a grotesque repudiation of one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy. Gibson expresses the very immature attitude that the most important aspect of democracy is that that majority get its way. Majority rule is not a unique trait to democracy; any angry mob can produce majority rule. The unique aspect of democracy is the respect and protection that it offers to the rights and desires of the minority. A democracy guarantees a basic set of rights to all its citizens; no group within the democracy, majority or minority, can alienate the rights of another group without fatally compromising the democracy.

Gibson’s limitation of a right to tolerance to only those who are “civil and behave” undermines other rights. Gibson suggests that the minority should not question the magnanimity of the majority. The right to criticize others is limited to the majority. What comes next? Will only testimony by members of the one true church be allowed in court?

As McKay notes, it wasn’t too long ago when blacks were told that they would be tolerated so long as they continued to be “civil and behave.” Anyone demanding full civil equality was labeled “uppity” and quickly put back down — put back in their appropriate social place, that is, which was one of inferiority and submissiveness.

It’s true that there is an older definition of “tolerance” which does imply a very unequal power relationship, with one side simply being “permitted” to exist. Thus, Gibson’s position on “tolerance” isn’t inconsistent with the concept — just with democracy, modernity, and simple human decency. Tolerance implies an ability to persecute and a conscious decision not to, which means that Gibson thinks that Christians have or should have the power to persecute non-Christians. Sadly, significant aspects of the Christian Right’s politics tend to be inconsistent with democracy, modernity, and simple human decency.

Why might anti-Semitism be increasing with the Christian Right? Probably for the same reason that modern anti-Semitism ever existed with the Christian Right in the first place: because Jews have always been symbols of the modern Enlightenment era. This is partially because they have, or at least appear to have, a higher representation among those responsible for modernity and partially because they have always been significant beneficiaries of modernity.

Of course, the progress of the modern era has almost always occurred at the expense of traditional Christian practices. In the past, this meant that Christians couldn’t discriminate against Jews in the workplace. Today, it means that Christians can’t discriminate against gays in the workplace. In the past, it meant that the state couldn’t enforce Protestantism or Catholicism as part of the law. Today, it means that the state can’t enforce Christianity in general as part of the law.

Some of the basic terms of the debate change, but the basic divisions, issues, and complaints remain. There are even Jews who help the cause of bigotry by lambasting their fellow Jews for having the temerity to not being “civil” and “behaving” by recognizing their subordinate status:

I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront. ... It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase “separation of church and state” actually exists somewhere in the Constitution. ... I am getting the idea that too many Jews won’t be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.

Yes, Burt Prelutsky blames his fellow Jews for daring to demand equality for all citizens regardless of religion, for not being civil by meekly accepting Christian supremacism, and for not behaving by allowing Christians to assert special privileges for their religion that aren’t accorded to any other religion. His article is called “The Jewish Grinch Who Stole Christmas,” naturally enough.

You may have noticed, though, that the ACLU is highly selective when it comes to religious intolerance. The same group of self-righteous shysters who, at the drop of a “Merry Christmas” will slap you with an injunction, will fight for the right of an American Indian to ingest peyote and a devout Islamic woman to be veiled on her driver’s license.

The ACLU has a strong and undeniable record defending the religious liberties of Christians. They aren’t “selective,” they have specific principles: defend religious expression on the part of individuals, opposed religious favoritism on the part of the state or officers of the state. All of this is clear to anyone who does the least little research on the matter. As far as I know, the ACLU has never filed any sort of injunction against anyone who has said “Merry Christmas.” Is Burt Prelutsky lying here?

This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don't accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours.

Yes, Burt Prelutsky has accepted his dhimmitude with graciousness and meek submissiveness. He’d like others to accept dhimmitude as well (perhaps he’s getting lonely), but we won’t do it. Let’s translate and see how this sounds in slightly altered terms:

This is a White nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their race. Speaking as a member of a minority race – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t have pure Aryan ancestry to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours.

Does any of this sound the least bit appropriate? No. The vile bigotry is unmistakable, even if it is said by one of the minorities who has the most to lose, and the same is true of Burt Prelutsky’s actual words. Burt Prelutsky is nothing more or less, I think, than an Uncle Tom for Christian Supremacy in America — an ideology that is every bit as reprehensible as the White Supremacy which Christians used to espouse. I don’t know who is worse: the bigoted supremacists or the toadies who lick their boots in the hopes of collecting a few scraps and privileges in return.

 

Read More:

• Christmas Wars: Recent News
• Christmas Wars: Overview, Rebuttal
• What do Atheists do During Christmas Holidays?
• Should Atheists Ignore Christmas?
• Are Atheists and Secularists Undermining Christmas?
• Is Jesus the Reason for the Season?
• Sources of Christmas Traditions, Modern and Ancient
• Are the Gospels Reliable About Jesus' Birth?
• Should Parents Perpetuate the Santa Claus Myth?
• Christmas Symbols, Christmas Holidays
• Christmas: Religious or Secular?