I'm wondering why there isn't a backlash against Santa Claus among the religious right. They rail against Halloween as a pagan holiday. While Easter and Christmas are clearly pagan holidays that were conveniently adapted to Christianity (Feasts for the changes of seasons...I think in Roman times it was Saturnalia and Lupercalia but I lack the wherewhithal to look it up right now.)
If he (Santa) sees you when your sleeping, knows when your awake, and knows when you've been bad or good, he's either a member of the NSA or some sort of omniscient god. Since it's probably not the NSA thing, I'm going with the latter.
If it's the latter, then Santa Claus is either the GOD or "a" god. Doesn't this go against the monotheistic claims of Christianity? The religious right certainly takes a more literal reading of the bible, and I don't think there are any claims about gift-giving, mall-habituating, red-coated elders that fly reindeer from here and yon. Clearly then, Santa Claus screws up the whole monotheistic tenet of Christianity. Why haven't I heard Bill O'Reilly or Mike Huckabee decry Santa Claus? Sure it's fine when there's a specter of witchcraft involved, as with Halloween. But, I would contend that getting reindeer to fly is certainly witchcraft.
Yes, I'm being hyperbolic and cynical, but again all I want is consistency. I wonder how many Christian children ask about the relationship between God and Santa, and I am especially curious about the responses given by the evangelicals. It may be easier with Catholics, because there is a trace of paganism intrinsic to the religion...worshipping of saints and whatnot.
It seems the truth is that Santa Claus is all about marketing, just like Valentine's Day. Some merchant in New York City read some stories from Europe and the U.S. and concocted what we now know as Santa Claus.
In 1863, a caricaturist for Harper's Weekly named Thomas Nast began developing his own image of Santa. Nast gave his figure a "flowing set of whiskers" and dressed him "all in fur, from his head to his foot." Nast's 1866 montage entitled "Santa Claus and His Works" established Santa as a maker of toys; an 1869 book of the same name collected new Nast drawings with a poem by George P. Webster that identified the North Pole as Santa's home.
Not noted was that this was in the middle of the American Civil War (which is the only "war" to outlaw slavery...every other nation seemed to figure out slavery was wrong without a war.)
I have no children, except cats who could give a shit about Santa Claus, but how does an avowed monotheist justify Santa Claus? For those that are not literalist Christians, it seems like a fun thing for kids, but for the hardcore Christians, I wonder how they can justify this? Rudolph's nose is clearly deviltry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
There is a ton of backlash. But, Steve, you have always referred to the "religious right" as if they were all the extremist sort. A story on Drudge today says that 80% of Americans consider themselves one for of Christian or another. If 80% of Americans consider themselves Christian, then shouldn't we stop painting them all as the "religious right"?
in any case, and back to the subject, check this out
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/586481/posts
Here's the other thing: You keep asking for consistency amongst an extremely broad and diverse group of people. GOOD LUCK! What group are you aware of, that is this large in scope, that is uniform? I am interested to find out.
In other words.....Muslim extremists are not supposed to be painted with a broad brush(your words), but the religous are all "religious right" and should come from the same ilk. Graduating from Baylor, I know several self professed Christians, but getting them to agree on everything would be an exercise in futility. Many are believers, and pro-choice, many are liberals and many are both pro-choice and conservatives. If you want consistency, you should winnow it down to one sect. Good luck with all that. And Merry Christ-mas.
Post a Comment