BY Mike Messina
Every year we are expected to observe a holiday that is both meaningless and offensive. I’m talking about Christmas. Some pushback is in order.
Christmas is both a religious and a secular holiday, the baby and the bathwater, if you will. From a religious standpoint, its a celebration of the birth of the baby Jesus. From a secular standpoint, it about spending money and, I submit, about Christian nationalism.
Let’s start with the religious — the baby — which is the easiest to dispose of. If the birth of baby Jesus were such a big deal, you would think there would be some evidence that it actually happened. We know there isn’t. The Bible, the only place the story is recorded, is neither historically nor scientifically accurate. It wasn’t meant to be. Historical and scientific accuracy were either unknown or unimportant to the the authors of the biblical texts.
We can save scientific accuracy to talk about another day — I know I’m not writing for Christians. If historical accuracy were important, you would think the authors of the Bible would have got the story straight. There are two versions of of the birth of Jesus in the Bible. One in Matthew and the other in Luke. Most likely, given the lack of independent corroboration, both were just stories that were ultimately written down, i.e. myth.
Next question is why was this baby was suppose to have been born, in a manger or elsewhere? The story is that the only way to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve was for God the Father to send God the Son to die on the cross and then rise again. Right out of the gate, however, there is a problem (Only one? No, actually quite a few, but let’s start with one). Adam and Eve never existed. Sorry, I had to throw in some science after all. Humans, like every other living thing on this planet evolved. Species don’t suddenly appear. They gradually evolve over vast amounts of time. There never was a first human just like there never was a first dog or horse or fish or anything else. “Oh, I don’t believe that!” “It doesn’t matter what you believe, evolution is a matter of fact, not a matter of belief, so don’t talk nonsense.” So if there never was a first human to commit an original sin, then the need for divine atonement goes out the window.
As long as we’re talking about problems…. What was this horrible sin anyway? Does anyone really think that eating an apple was heinous enough to require a divine crucifixion? Maybe it was the acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil? As Robert Frost wrote: “… it was by having been contrasted, good and bad so long have lasted. … we learn from the forbidden fruit, for brains there is no substitute.” We know how to use our brain. We don’t need to confuse prescientific myth with reality.
There, we’ve done it. We’ve thrown out the baby. Now let’s move on to the bathwater. I think most of our secular Christmas traditions developed around the time of World War II. George Orwell wrote that all art is propaganda. In the 1930s and 40s, it was necessary for the country to come together to fight the war. Did you ever wonder why Bing Crosby was dreaming of a white Christmas, or why Jimmy Steward was discovering a wonderful life? Norman Rockwell Christmas cards were the glue that held the nation together through tough times. A few years later, Christmas was what separated us from the godless commies in Russia. Likewise, it’s no accident that the arrival of Santa Claus is sponsored by the big New York department stores. All art is propaganda indeed and Americans swallowed it hook line and sinker.
What about the children? Sooner or - if they aren’t very bright - later, they’ll figure out the Santa Claus thing. And for those born in the 21st century, most will get a grip on reality and reject everything supernatural. Why not rescue their young minds from the burden of superstition and the whole dubious experience from the start? As secular influence continues to grow, we can expect traditional Christmas to seem less like the culture’s default holiday. When secular children view Christmas as “something that some other people do,” not as “something everybody but us gets to do,” the lure of forbidden fruit will lose much of its sting.
If those of us who have thrown out the baby, don’t also throw out the bathwater, i.e. not acquiesce in “harmless” celebrations, we acknowledge, or at least give the impression that we acknowledge, that there is some value in the underlying story. Its the old story of being an absolutist vs a cimpatatablist. If we secular humanists are committed to truth and critical thinking, how can we take part in superstitious observances. Isn’t doing so counterproductive if we wish to be taken seriously as proponents of rational living? As members of an unpopular outgroup, we should consider the message we send the larger culture if we yield to Christmas. In multicultural America outgroups get respect by highlighting their differences, not by hiding them. Accommodation earns only contempt.
We secular humanists have a stirring, even inspiring view of life. Life in an un-designed, unintended, and unmanaged universe filled with possibility. The only life we have is here and now, and the only meanings we can depend on are the ones we create for ourselves. We embody the ideals of life and love without religion. Yet who will listen to us if we appear as hypocrites because we cannot muster the courage to forgo a holiday whose history and principles we would reject in any other setting?
Many of the ideas for this piece were inspired by an article written by the late Tom Flynn who served as associate editor of Free Inquiry and coeditor of Secular Humanist Bulletin. Flynn wrote that holidays, in general are a bad idea. Our ancient holidays developed in a world of mystery and privation quite unlike the world most of us inhabit today. Consider the revolution that science, technology, and the naturalistic worldview has wrought. Today, at least in the First World, most humans die of old age. Most children live to become adults. There is usually enough to eat. Many diseases are curable. Small families are sufficient to ensure that society goes on. Men and women can view the phenomena of nature with understanding and respect, instead of with superstition and uncomprehending fear. Even when a natural disaster is unavoidable, there is often advance warning. Aid comes quickly, and the victims can confront their experience fortified by their understanding of the physical processes involved. Moderns whose homes are destroyed by a storm, earthquake, or tornado are still homeless, but at least they are not simultaneously homeless and mystified as to what hostile spirit has done this to them. Unless, that is, they are Christians or Moslems who think god will protect, or at least rescue them. Flynn wrote:
“When we confront the modern world of purpose and possibility, we cannot know for certain what is right. But we can know that almost without exception, our instinctive assumptions, our received social forms, our musty rituals and ancient traditions are wrong. They developed in response to and were superbly attuned to a world of mystery and limited expectations that no longer exists. Consequently, whatever may be the appropriate social and cultural response to the conditions of modern life, it is far more likely to be an innovation yet unthought of than to be any hand-me-down of our past.”
More atheists, freethinkers, and secular humanists need to treat Christmas as “just another day.” Skip the feasts. Sit out the exchange of gifts. Put in a normal day’s work if you can. As Tom Flynn put it, infidelity is hard for believers to take seriously when its advocates so visibly cashier their principles rather than pass up an excuse to eat, drink, and be merry.
So, there you have it. We threw out the baby long ago. It’s time now to open the window and toss the bathwater.