My Channukah

 Apologies in advance -- this will be less about Channukah than about the creeping intrusion of Christmas into the mass consciousness and its effect on Channukah (among other things). But I just couldn't waste the delicious pun in the title so there you go.

I got into a conversation on an internet forum (ok, an argument, I guess) about the decision in Dedham, MA not to have (and then, yes to have) a Christmas tree put up in the local library. You can google it -- I'm sure the story is out there. I am a firm believer that all religious symbols, for any religion, belong in spaces reserved for the private expression of belief. Your house, even your lawn are fine by me. Your car? Great. But public (i.e. municipal) spaces which are supported by and affiliated with government should be devoid of such imagery. Grinch much? Yes, and I'm OK with that. I'm not in favor of "have one, but have them all" because we can never get "all" and people start to chafe when the "all" includes religions (and modes of expression) which the majority decides are inappropriate. Then it becomes a popularity contest, with each group either vying for the approval of the (Christian) majority or going to court to force itself down the public throat, breeding resentment. Here is an article which relates.

Am I being overly sensitive? Well, I'm not in the majority and I'm not especially popular, so maybe my sensitivity is borne of experience, personal and historical. To say that I'm being overly sensitive is to discount the validity of my experience, something which is easily done by those who don't share that. If I have been stung by a bee and I freak out when I see another bee, someone who has never been stung might think I am being overly scared. No, I'm being properly scared based on my own interactions with bees. Don't tell me they aren't scary because YOU aren't scared. Feel free to speak out of your frame of reference but don't you dare discount mine as equally valid.

Anyway, in this discussion, it was brought up that the tree shouldn't be worried about because the courts have decided that it is a "secular" symbol and not one that represents religion. Bosh and/or piffle. No, strike the "or." Just bosh AND piffle. A Christmas tree is a religious symbol and this can be demonstrated in 2 ways:

1. Its name. "Christmas" Tree. 

2. Its affiliation in thought and timing with a Christian holiday.

If you disagree with my logic, then I would suggest trying to put a tree up in July with the statement "Happy Summer's Day" (or even on Arbor day!) and see who shows up to put tinsel on it, wearing a Santa hat and depositing presents. These are trappings of Christmas whether or not they have any biblical connection to whatever the day is supposed to mean (and, trust me, there is plenty of controversy over the actual religious/biblical value or authenticity to Christmas, but for over 1500 years, the holiday has ben adopted and inextricably linked to Christian mythos).

The statement that the tree is a secular symbol is the height of arrogance. And trust you me, I know from arrogance. To decide that a symbol which has value to only one subgroup is not religious, but representative of a larger, secular culture is manipulation which develops from a Christian-centric view of the world. The idea that Christian symbology is synonymous with American culture is due to the pervasive presence of the tree in the mass consciousness and the resultant monopoly Christian thought has in deciding what it is to be American. Yes, one can make all sorts of arguments about the existence of solstice-awareness in the stories of many religions (Judaism included) and ecologically minded actions, but all of this is a posteriori rationalization.

For the tree to have value as a cultural and secular symbol in America it must speak to the experience, values and identity of the American people. July 4th is a secular and uniquely American experience because it commemorates a defining moment in our collective history. I, as an American am, BY DEFINITION, included in the group that Independence Day created. A day celebrating the presidents, veterans who live and died for this country, or even the social and economic achievement of American worker makes sense. Democracy celebrating democracy. Capitalism celebrating capitalism. Maybe it smacks of a Hollywood awards show, celebrities giving each other prizes for being celebrities, but at least it stands for something specifically American.

Where in the annals of US history is the tree an important or formative item? G. Washington chopped one down (no, he didn't, at least not in the "cannot tell a lie" way...a story which, interestingly, sounds like a revisionist version of Abraham and his father's idols) but other than that, the tree comes from an outside culture which adopted it from another outside culture. And, yes, I feel that the 10 commandments is similarly still a religious symbol. Did our secular system of laws pay homage to a biblical concept? Maybe, but then let's have an image of the signing of the Constitution in our courthouses and not a statue of anyone with the 10 commandments. Like here.

When we embrace the idea that Christian superiority allows that mindset to impose its symbols under the guise of "it equals the American experience" we exclude all of those to whom (and for whom) that symbol does not speak. And what if a Muslim was the one to decide that he tree is no longer religious? Does anyone outside the group have the right to strip the religion of its symbol? Or is that the prerogative only of the insider who wants to see what he values in every location, so he plays word games in order to get around law?

And, yes, I feel this way about "Secret Santa" and its Jewish equivalents. Tis not the season for presents. There might be a Jewish value to giving coins specifically ON Channukah, but the influx of imitative traditions ("Mystery Maccabee" I'm looking at you) is nauseating. Do we really want to be like them so much that we will turn our holiday experience from being a celebration of unique identity into an opportunity to lose that identity and co-opt a non-Jewish practice? We might as call Channukah the Festival of Lies then. Songs about hypocrisy, irony and capitulation would needs be composed.

My Channukah is a religious experience; it has no "Channukah Bush." It is defined by history, codified in religious texts and driven by my obligation to follow the laws of my religion and my pride at being affiliated with both the historical events and the chain of transmission and existence which keep that history vital and relevant. I light candles. I say blessings and change my daily liturgy. I might sing songs which celebrate the divine and his miraculous presence. I will not ask anyone to value this if that person doesn't share in my experience and, in truth, I don't want him to (see here). Being asked to share in someone else's religious values, or even buy into the lie that will force me to be part of another's religious experience by pretending that it represents me on a different level is patently offensive.

If this is a war on Christmas because people want to claim that Christmas is a secular/cultural holiday, then so be it. You want it to be secular? Rename it "Giving-Day" and put it in June. Tell churches not to have any special services. Somehow I don't think that this will happen.

In Judaism, and mainly in the dietary laws of Kashrut, there is a notion that a minority is subsumed in a majority and loses its individual identity. By allowing the "melting pot" to mix us in, we will start tasting like the majority. We have to hold on to what makes us "us" and keep our distinct flavor while separating from the others. Even our "minor" holiday (rabbinic and not requiring much in the way of cessation of creating actions) needs to be a holy-day, and we should stop aspiring to be like Christians in our observances because we are accepting that this somehow makes us more American.