Leftist Factions Co-opt Rather Than Abolish Holidays
For about the past two decades, those to the left side of the sociopolitical spectrum have made such a fuss over their hostility towards traditional American holidays and celebrations that the arising disputations have themselves become an anticipated aspect of the close of each year.
For about the past two decades, those to the left side of the sociopolitical spectrum have made such a fuss over their hostility towards traditional American holidays and celebrations that the arising disputations have themselves become an anticipated aspect of the close of each year. It was claimed such festivities promote values so vile that these sentiments must be expunged from the civic calendar and the very names seldom mentioned for fear of irrevocably harming those not participating for whatever the reason.
Though not always cognizant of the epic spiritual and philosophical struggle taking place all around them, Americans can be a remarkably stubborn and independent lot. As such, a number sympathetic to the process of communalization have realized that they might be more successful in accomplishing their goals through a subdued gradualism rather than through sudden revolutionary upheaval.
The first of the remembrances of the waning year subverted by manipulative social engineers is Thanksgiving. This holiday is despised for a number of common liberal reasons.
For starters, it is argued that Thanksgiving is racist because of the hostilities that eventually erupted between Americans of European origins and the American Indians. However, such criticism fails to recognize that, at the time of the first Thanksgiving Feast, these distinct groups were at accord with one another over the blessings shared amidst hardships and struggle.
Frankly, if you have a problem over the concept of Thanksgiving, you have a serious attitude problem. No one is saying that at points that the Indians weren't screwed over. Yet it must be remembered that some of them gave as good as they got in terms of inflicting violence upon innocent Whites not responsible for crafting or implementing policy.
So if you can't take a few moments to express gratitude for what you do have in this country as a result of the values set in motion there at the beginning even if they weren't adhered to in full at every step along the way, you are yourself harboring a degree of animosity bordering on racism.
The next and probably deeper reason as to why Thanksgiving is really despised despite all the lofty platitudes regarding honoring indigenous cultures and the like is that the day expresses gratitude towards God. In this era of postmodern enlightenment, such homage is to be directed more towards terrestrial sources, the COMMUNITY being foremost among them.
Usually when given the opportunity in a public forum such as the popular press to provide words of encouragement and understanding, those holding positions as professional clergy worthy of their hirer tend to draw focus to what God has done for us, how we have fallen short of the glory of God, and how He still loves us anyway with restoration available for those placing themselves under His mercy. Interestingly, pastors of Emergent Church inclinations would rather go along with the flow rather than prevent the nation's downward slide into tyranny and desolation.
Writing in the November 2011 edition of the Hyattsville Life & Times, pastor of the town's First Baptist Church Todd Thomason asserts that the thing he is grateful for this Thanksgiving season is not so much his God, his freedom, or even his family but rather COMMUNITY. In other words, this pastor does not value people as individuals but rather as part of the overall group.
In his analysis, Thomason in particular reflected upon a power outage following Hurricane Irene. Commenting on what took place, the pastor observes, "But I was hardly the only person offering assistance. It was a wonderful display of community at its best."
If this represents the kind of spiritual insight available at this particular congregation, no wonder the discerning get the impression it is becoming increasingly ensnared in the clutches of communalism.
Thomason continues, "Then the lights came back on and we all went back...to our narrower, more familiar life patterns that...keep us apart."
What this misguided cleric fails to realize is that, by its definition, community does not include everyone and by its nature is necessarily exclusive. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
In a paragraph following this lamentation, Pastor Thomason lists a number of things that he views as obstacles to social harmony. These include categories such as economic status, political affiliation, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Why aren't these valid categories around which to in part derive one's social identity?
G.K. Chesterton is credited with saying that one should not take a fence down until you know why it was put up. Sometimes the best way to maintain amicable relations is to limit one's interactions with those whose values are diametrically opposed to one's own.
Rev. Thomason, on the other hand, advocates such a compulsory and contrived degree of togetherness that one ought to willingly surrender those convictions of the heart one holds most dear. For usually in those kinds of situations where the parties involved hold to conflicting perspectives, it is the party holding to the higher standard that is forced to adopt the more lax principle.
For example, in terms of religion, if this is not to be one of the categories by which we determine those from the within from those from the without, it is usually the ones that believe that faith alone in Jesus Christ without reliance upon good works is the only means of eternal salvation and not those that believe all paths are equally valid so long as our good works outweigh our evil deeds that are forced to compromise in the name of ecumenical unity. Likewise in regards to sexual orientation, when we supposedly come together setting aside our differences, in the postmodern context that does not mean the promiscuous elevate their behavior by henceforward living lives of repentant abstinence, covenantal monogamy, or at least keep their mouths shut regarding what kinky proclivities they might be into. Rather, it ends up that those espousing a traditional morality are the ones not only shamed into silence but forced to smile and applaud in affirmation under threat of punitive denunciation.
Until recently, the disputes regarding Thanksgiving have for the most part been of a more subdued or subtle nature. Some of the really great battles of the culture war have instead broken out over Christmas.
The key to winning any conflict is controlling how that conflict is expressed in terms of language and conceptualization. Those that despise Christmas and the Christ that the celebration was originally intended to honor have gone to considerable lengths to minimize the mention of the day's very name.
Occasionally this is accomplished under threat of some kind of punishment on the part of the state. More often, this is achieved by attempting to shame these words out of common usage by crafting elaborate reasons as to why the values given lip service by petty despots such diversity, inclusion, and hyperpluralism are to be extolled at the expense of those preferred by the average person.
For example, the Hyattsville Reporter insert of the November 2011 edition of the Hyattsville Life & Times lists a number of events to be held by the municipality throughout the month of December such as the "Annual Holiday Tree Lighting", breakfast with Santa, and a memorial toy drive. At no point in the announcement is the reader informed as to why these events are being held this time of year rather than in the middle of the summer as Christmas is never mentioned.
In the past, it was claimed in connection with this very issue that the phraseology "holiday" has to be utilized since not everyone celebrates Christmas. If so, then why is the word invoked in the column immediately to the left?
The heading reads none other than "We're Dreaming Of A Green Christmas". However, what follows does not so much detail what certain individuals plan to do themselves but rather what they hope to guilt trip everybody else into.
For example, in regards to gifts, it is literally insinuated "You shouldn't have." Instead of traditional gifts, the responsible consumer rather gives donations to charities or purchases locally made items. In other words, things nobody really wants.
As in the case of the blurb about domestic artificial and locally grown trees, the reason behind locally produced gift items has nothing to do with bolstering the U.S. economy. Rather, it is about reducing the distance for ecological reasons the miles goods and supplies are transported. But unless an artist or craftsman forges, smelts, or mixes their own supplies, does it really matter if the assorted petrochemicals are assembled down the street or across the country since they will still have to travel the exact same distance?
In "The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe", the tyranny imposed by the White Witch upon Narnia is categorized as it being always winter but never Christmas. It seems now the next stage of villainy has developed where the White Witches of our own time and realm instead wish to use the trappings of this celebration as a tactic in the attempt to implement their assorted agendas.
Frederick Meekins is an independent theologian and social critic. Frederick holds a BS in Political Science/History, a MA in Apologetics/Christian Philosophy from Trinity Theological Seminary, and a PhD. in Christian Apologetics from Newburgh Theological Seminary.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
