November 25, 2005

Earlier today I heard something that makes you wonder if some people have any common sense at all. Apparently, evangelicals want to sue people for not saying, "Merry Christmas." Even "Happy Holidays" is unacceptable, apparently.

Specifically, they are targetting merchants. They plan to boycott any shop or store that does not say, "Merry Christmas," whether they say, "Happy Holidays," or not. Aside from boycotting, they plan to sue them. Why? Because they feel it denies them their religious rights.

Is anyone else confused about this? I certainly am. I'd like to know their purpose for it, really. They'll lose the lawsuits either way. To say, "Happy Holidays" wouldn't impede on anyone who celebrates a holiday. However, saying, "Merry Christmas," would impede on anyone who does not celebrate that specific holiday. To my knowledge, no one has complained about someone saying, "Merry Christmas," to them even if they don't celebrate it. However, if I were still working as a cashier, I would feel that my religious rights are being impeded upon by being forced to recognize a holiday from a religion that is not my own.

Now, the evangelicals behind this movement did make one good point. Christmas is a federal holiday. Okay, fine. But let's look at why it is a federal holiday. The president in office has say on what religious holidays can be treated as federal holidays. At least, that's how it was explained to me. Either way, if it were not for Christian presidents, Christmas would not be treated as a federal holiday. It is to allow the president to practice his/her religion. It is not meant to force the country to celebrate and honor the holiday.

Because we seem to currently have a president who is so concerned with pleasing fellow Republicans and/or evangelicals, I doubt my next statement will ring completely true, though it is supposed to if we had a president who would think for himself. By declaring a religious holiday a federal one, the president merely wishes to allow others to have the chance to celebrate his/her personal religious holidays. It in no way means that he/she wishes to impede on others'. The president may say, "Merry Christmas," but that doesn't mean he/she expects the rest of the country to as well. They may celebrate one or more of any number of holidays this time of year. The president him/herself does not have to personally recognize those other holidays, but that doesn't mean he/she expects everyone else to invalidate all but his/her own.

That the majority of our country is Christian is fact. I agree that says something. However, just 50.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% would be a majority. If that were the percent in this case, this whole thing would most likely be squished before it ever hit the news. Based on the statistics of 2001, only 81% of American adults even identify with a specific religion. That tells us the majority of America is religious, or at least the adults anyway. 76.5% identified as Christian (down from the 86.2% in 1990). So yes, of those who took part as of 2001, the majority of Americans are obviously Christian. This makes a great argument for the evangelicals.

However, their claim is that simply saying, "Happy Holidays" or not anything at all impedes on their rights seems to be backwards. What about the 1.3% of Jews? The .5% of Muslims? The 134,000 (as of 2001, but nearly doubling every 30 months) of Wiccans and other Pagans? Saying, "Merry Christmas" impedes on them. Oh, and let's not forget the 14.1% that do not follow any specific religion. What about them? Even assuming they celebrate some sort of holidays, it would impede on them either way. And let's not forget about those who consider themselve to be secular or not religious or spiritual in any shape or form. Perhaps they celebrate non-religious holidays, but even so, even "Happy Holidays" may impede on them.

So we're worrying about people's rights being stepped on are we? It doesn't seem that way in this case. Assuming they were genuine about that, shouldn't they be fighting for them not to say anything along the lines of "merry this" or "happy that"? That's truly the only way no one is going to risk the chance of offending anyone. After all, if someone walks into a check-out line, the only way the cashier is going to know what holiday they celebrate is if the customer brings it up.

When I worked as a cashier, the only time I ever knew for a fact that someone was Christian was when a customer began telling me about christianmovies.com and church. Oh, and the guy who handed me a little pamphlet from a Baptist church that had the most horrible things to say about Catholism and told you how bad of a person you were no matter how you lived your life. That's two occasions out of hundreds, maybe thousands, of different customers I had come through my line. Tell me how I'm supposed to know which ones I'm going to offend with saying, "Happy Holidays," and which ones I'll impede on by saying, "Merry Christmas." Not to mention, explain to me how I would be offending anyone by not saying anything about Christmas when I myself don't celebrate it. After all, wouldn't you want to hear "Merry Christmas" from someone who actually knows and cares about it rather than from someone who's only saying it for the fear of being sued?

Again, I highly doubt any lawsuits would be won over this. I can't see how there's any evidence of offending anyone's rights with "Happy Holidays." Granted, someone who doesn't celebrate any religious/spiritual holidays could probably pull it off, but in this case, it's not possible. At least, if they pull it off, it will only be because of a biased judge/jury that ignored how the justice system is meant to work. Unlike the woman with the hot coffee and the lack of the "Caution: Contents May Be Hot" warning, this case doesn't have anything to back it up. It's not just absurd, it's outright useless. But maybe they just don't know how else to celebrate Christmas than by threatening others with lawsuits for not being Christian, or at least Christian-minded.

That brings me to my conclusion. These evangelicals are not worried about rights being stepped on. They aren't worried about people being denied their religious freedoms. They aren't worried about any of that. Why? Because they are the ones trying to step on others' rights. They are the ones trying to deny others' religious freedoms. What they are looking for is to convert the rest of America. At the very least, make it look like they've all been converted. Whichever will do them just fine, I suppose.

I have nothing against Christianity. For me personally, I do not agree with much of it, particularly teachings of churches. The teachings of Jesus Christ were good for the most part. He was a good man. Some denominations are "worse" in my eyes than others (this, I base off of the teachings of Christ and how far the denominations stray from it or in how manipulative they can be and whether they are akin to a cult or not). So when it comes to Christians themselves, I do not judge them because they are Christian and I am not (for those Christians that think I'm doomed, Jesus would love me for this one; after all, he did preach that judging others was "bad"). I have many Christian friends and family members that are wonderful, kind-hearted people. However, just as there is always those "bad seeds" in a family line or a "trouble-maker" in a classroom, there are Christians that make a bad name for themselves. In most (nearly all from my experiences) cases, those Christians happen to be evangelicals.

Now, I understand that their faith says anyone who is not a part of that faith is doomed. I understand that conversion is a big thing to them. I understand that they feel the need to reach out to as many people as possible and make them all Christians. I can understand that. I have much tolerance and understanding when it comes to religious beliefs. So when someone hands me a little church pamphlet (no matter how wrong I think it is) or comes knocking on my door to invite me to church, I thank them. For them, they are doing as they were meant to. For me, they cared enough to go out of their way to show they care even though they do not know me. I may not agree with them. I may not ever actually go to the church they invite me to. I may never return to Christianity. However, I thank them for their care. These are good people.

So where do I draw the line for a good-hearted individual merely trying to show they care and someone who deserves to be smacked by the God that they worship? Well, if they're liars, that's usually a big one. You know the "I was a *insert commonly misunderstood or often misrepresented faith here* and the devil had his grip on me!" types. The ones who claim they were a part of some alternative faith and then portray it in the same way Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger portrayed witches and witchcraft in the Malleus Maleficarum. Then if someone were to take a real, honest, unbiased look into that particular faith, they'd find the evangelist not only did not portray the faith accurately, but they flat out lied and made things up. Deep research will often uncover that they took things from random sources that explain the Satanism of Christian belief (for those who don't understand that statement, do a search on Satanism and you'll find those who actually practice Satanism are a part of a religion that is far different from that which the Church has always talked about; the Satanism they preach agaisnt is a creation of Christianity). Other times when I'll draw the line is when the evangelist is in it for the money (I really don't like people who are into anything solely for material gain), are going through a power-trip, preach violence (or anything of a violent manner, whether physical or not), or are overly manipulative to a point you wonder if they are even Christian themselves.

What disgusts me is that these "bad seed" evangelists are often the most popular. They are the outspoken, highly active, must-be-in-the-spotlight types, for the most part. Because of this, they can lead movements like this "say 'Merry Christmas' or we'll sue you" thing. Because they are so popular, they get not only weak-minded individuals or people who simply don't realize that the evangelists they pay money to every week is a "bad seed" (ones that trust that any Christian is a good Christian), but they also get support of good church leaders (because sometimes you have to follow people you don't always 100% trust to get where you can make your own voice heard) who in turn will get the support of the rest of their church-goers. It brings new meaning to the phrase "blind sheep."