Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Muckroom Follies 12.25.07 HoHoHo--Bah! Humbug!

Season's Greetings, Dear Gentle Reader(s)!

Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the Muckroom cadre takes no holiday on this holy day for Christian adherents, but where' the surprise in that, right?

Confounding logic with some strange usages is a minor theme of the day. For instance:

Dinesh D'Souza offers this: "Taking Christ Out of Christmas." His final paragraph begins with this sentence, "We've reached a sad state in the West when we acquiesce in a hate-filled campaign to deny our Christian roots and heritage." Now, DGR(s), let's establish immediately that the problem here is "hate-filled." Hate is far too harsh a word to assign to the effort to have the Constitution interpreted in such a way as to allow all U.S. citizens to enjoy their religion or their choice to pay no attention to organized religion. Seeking to keep the various governmental entities "secular" has nothing to do with the emotion of hate. It is more to do with the emotion of love--for the U.S. Constitution. It is difficult to understand why D'Souza does not acknowledge this? Surely he knows it to be true. No one wants to take "Christ"out of Christmas. (That would leave "mas," surely that would confuse our Spanish speaking brethren, and not make sense at all.) It might be more in keeping with the Constitution to take "Christmas" out of our secular government.

Additionally, dear, sweet Bill Murchison offers a piece entitled: "Christmas vs. The Rejectionists." Billy's piece turns out to be the usual argument about Christian faith versus science (virgin birth, Biblical creation, salvation). The problem is Rejectionists. When Murchison goes shopping and selects an apple, is he a rejectionist when he chooses one apple over another? A pale blue shirt over a white shirt? Why is it then that a person raised in a particular society decides as an observant, critical adult to go on a different personal path is suddenly a rejectionist? Why not a "disagreeist?" A you-go-your-way-and-I'll-go-mineist?

DGR(s), there is no obvious answer to the question. One might surmise, though, that it's a defense mechanism. A person who has so much of him/herself invested in a particular belief that were that belief to be somehow rendered irrelevant the person would think him/herself also rendered irrelevant might turn irrational in defending the belief, while actually defending the self.

Enjoy the solstice season.

Trust, but verify.


Sphere: Related Content

No comments:

Post a Comment

The courage of your conviction virtually demands your name, if we don't know you.