I am pretty sick and tired of constant low-level attacks on Christmas and Christianity under the false banner of "inclusiveness" and/or "historical accuracy." Today, after I shared a "Keep Christ in Christmas" banner on
MY facebook page I received a negative comment. I wasn't surprised, considering that western society is becoming increasingly hostile to Christianity. Indeed, a review of the portrayal of christians by our leftist-dominated mainstream media shows anti-christianity is the one acceptable bigotry left to 'polite' society.
She said, "
Ok. I respect that but then you need to move the celebration to the spring when he really was born and give us back our mid winter solstice celebration." I know this person, and knowing her, I'm certain she didn't mean it in a mean-spirited way. My first inclination was to dismiss the statement as a typical harmless wishy washyism of an agnostic who, not certain what to believe, unthinkingly repeated something she heard on tv. But I could not read it again without concluding that whoever uttered it first, did so with total malice in their heart.
Remember the entire "Keep Christ in Christmas" meme is meant to pull people back from the crass commercialization of the Christmas season. What's wrong with that? The answer is, nothing. So why would someone say their respect for this concept required the removal of Christmas from December 25th? Certainly mainstream Christianity isn't oppressing non-Christians from celebrating the winter solstice.
Perhaps I was being too literal and the writer was simply being sloppy in how she chose to craft her compound sentence. It certainly doesn't help that the "he (Jesus Christ) was really born in the springtime " thing is a well-known deconstructionist myth, and is often invoked in a mean-spirited way to belittle the faith of Christians. I've seen that weak sentiment brandished about like a bludgeon in web-forums as if it were argument enough to convert Christians into atheists. It completely misses the point that mainstream Christianity doesn't pretend it was
actually December 25th, but instead holds that date as 'tradition'.
The veracity of the first part of her statement, "I respect that" is immediately given lie by the words which follow it. Look again at the implications of the second part that statement, "...you need to move the celebration to the spring..." December 25th is the one day agreed upon by the world in general for the celebration of Christmas. It would be impossible to get all the varied peoples of the world to agree on a new date, and would destroy the universality with which Christmas is celebrated. That would be a tremendous blow against Christianity.
Since the date isn't known, December 25th is as valid a day to chose for Christmas as the deconstructionists "Sometime in the Spring". Indeed, December 25th is the more valid, as it not only carries the weight of hundreds of years of happy tradition, but moving it would simply be one more opportunity for chaos and strife. How the HELL could that be better?
It can't.
