America Belongs to Christians?
A good example can be found in an older column written by Dennis Prager for World Net Daily:
Nothing is quite as symbolic of the narcissism at the heart of contemporary "progressive" policies than the belief that because there are non-Christian employees at a company, its Christmas party may not be called one. Who do 5 percent of the employees think they are that they feel empowered to demand that the other 95 percent not celebrate their party with the name that they want? And what kind of mindset denies a company the right to celebrate a national holiday?
I was raised to believe that unless the majority is engaged in evil, one honors the majority's will. If a religious, racial or atheist minority member can't abide the name "Christmas," it is entirely his or her problem, not the majority's. Demanding that the vast majority of one's fellow workers deny the holiday they all celebrate just to make a few people more comfortable (especially when their discomfort is only a sign of narcissism) is morally indefensible.
The title of the piece is "Taking Back Our Country," which suggests that the country belongs to those 95% who celebrate Christmas as a Christian holiday. Now, where did Prager get the idea that just because a company holds a "holiday party" instead of a "Christmas Party," that means that Christians are "denying" the holiday they celebrate? Is it the association with a generic party? That implies that anyone associated with a "Christmas Party" must be accepting and celebrating Christmas, even if they don't really do so and aren't Christian. Without even realizing it, Prager provides the reason why generic "holiday" parties should be preferred.
Then there is the nonsense that a minority should only not honor the will of the majority is if the majority is engaged in "evil." What ever happened to consideration, civility, tolerance, and love? Maybe only atheists are supposed to be "civil" — by submitting to the religious demands of the majority? Prager thinks that it is "bigotry" for Christians to attend a generic "holiday" party, but not at all bigoted for non-Christians to attend a "Christmas" party.
Maybe that isn't "evil" in his book, but it certainly isn't considerate, civil, tolerant, or loving. The majority, by virtue of its relative power and size, has an obligation to watch out for the "little guy" who can be easily trampled upon as the majority moves around. Prager doesn't seem to believe that such responsibility exists, though. The minority simply has to watch out for itself — and if it gets squashed along the way, too bad. It's ironic that Prager himself is part of a minority — he's Jewish — but there have been plenty of examples of when minorities have tried to maintain their own privileged status by working hard to reinforce the greater privileges of others.
Comments
Once again, someone is confusing bullying with democracy. Typical American theocratic Christian. Of course they think the will of the majority should be adhered to, since they arrogantly view themselves as members of that majority.
“There are quite a few people who believe that America isn’t simply a Christian Nation, but that America as a nation belongs to Christians”
What’s the difference?
Does it really matter if a Christmas party is called such or if it is called a holiday party? I could understand saying that companies which aren’t all Christian shouldn’t have Christmas parties, or that they should have holiday celebrations for employees of each religion and allow secular ones to have a secular party, but to say that one can have only a Christmas party as long as it is called something else seems rather silly.
Ah, but when you call it a holiday party, you can schedule it a week or two into January, when venues are available and cheaper. The particular year that my then-employer did this, Ramadan started before the party. The company had several Muslim employees, who’d find partying a problem then (but before Christmas would have been fine). It was a very family-friendly party, too, so not only the Muslim employees but their families got shafted.
The party organizers were shocked that so many employees skipped the party. I skipped the party as well, but I despise company parties. I’m apparently somewhat unique that way.
Karen, don’t you worry, I have worked for my company since 1985 and I have missed EVERY one of the annual Christmas (or Holiday) parties. I have no interest in them.
“to say that one can have only a Christmas party as long as it is called something else seems rather silly.”
Ah, but Mr. Prager is not quibbling about political correctness. Instead he is railing against what he perceives as anti-Christian animosity that masquerades as “sensitivity” or “inclusiveness.”
Christmas is sufficiently secular that I have no problem attending a “Christmas party”. What I do object to, is the idea that we must call any such party a “Christmas party” because failure to do so would slight Mr. Prager’s intended audience.
Christmas party, holiay party, call it what you will, I couldn’t care less.
However the time off work is called a Public Holiday, not Christmas holiday, which is the difference.
One nation under god? don’t think so!
If America belongs to Xians, I don’t see why atheists should be paying taxes. According to US law, I’m a US citizen. So, I don’t see how anyone can argue the country doesn’t belong as much to me as to anyone else living here?
As far as the Xmas party, just to say, my neighborhood association sponsors a “Holiday in the Park” every year that used to be “Christmas in the Park.” My view is that the neighborhood association needs to represent EVERY_ONE_ in the neighborhood–even if there is only one person in it that isn’t Christian. That ONE exception is still _part_ of our neighborhood and should not be discounted or excluded. In fact, it’s un-neighborly to do so. The kind thing to do is to be _inclusive_ of every person by making the event simply a generic celebration that every_one_ can enjoy without feeling as though they’re on the outside of our community looking in.
I question the neighborliness of those who are upset it’s not “Christmas” in the Park any longer. If you are informed that the name of your event is exclusionary and divisive, why wouldn’t you take an attitude of contrition, admit you were simply ignorant about the negative impact of the name of the event, and happily and openly revise the title to reflect a greater sense of community for your neighborhood?
Is the event about everyone coming together as a “community” to have a good time and fellowship? Or is it about person X pushing their worldview onto person Y?
I think the people who insist on using “Xmas” in a context where non-Xians are intended to be _included_ need to ask themselves what their great need is to control the name of the event and force their views onto every_one_ who _doesn’t_ agree with their views.
How petty and ungenerous. How controlling and unkind. If you want to call it a Xmas party, then do so, but make it clear on the invite that you don’t want non-Xians to attend and you don’t welcome those who want to celebrate but who do not accept your religious perspective, because that’s actually what you mean. Express your hateful, divisive, petty, exclusionist intent up-front. Have the courage of your convictions. You don’t want to play nice and be courteous and considerate of anyone else–you don’t need to be because you’re an elitist Xian. You’re better. You’re privileged. And nobody else’s feelings or views matter.
This is not about someone asking you to bend over backwards and compromise your beliefs. It’s about being asked to be courteous enough to consider others. I do it all the time. A rose by any other name. If I have a choice between a divisive elitist label that only represents _some_ invited participants and an inclusive title that represents all participants, that’s a no-brainer if I’m at all concerned about the comfort and happiness of anyone except myself and my little clique.
Our company still has those wonderful old-school parties with liquor (we had vodka slides the past two years!), wild dancing, body parts getting copied, and couples making out in the broom closet. I don’t think a strictly religious person would actually want their religion associated with them!
Good point, Jayelle. I wanted to point out that I have never been to a “Christmas” party that was religious in nature. Tracieh is right that the term “holiday” party is more inclusive and hospitable. I might also add, more modern in this day of political correctness. No one is trying to take anything religious away from anyone. “Holiday” party is far more accurate in most cases than “Christmas” party.
America belongs to the rich sociopathic criminals who have stolen 90%.
I don’t mind one bit America being possessed by Christians, (except New York City Dats for da Jews) As long as
they leave my country alone. For that matter I wish they’d leave all the other countries alone, the world would be a more peaceful place.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
Our company Chrismas party of ten tevolves around a casino night, or dance. There is always a bar & the bffet raise gluttony to its highest level. I enjoy attaching this debauchery to a holiday name Christians hold so dear.