If you are having trouble viewing this email, click here.

December 22, 2008
by Julia Thompson

side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar Whew! That was close.  We almost started to believe that Christmas was the "hap-happiest season of all," full of sparkling ornaments layered onto faux trees, sugary novelties, kitschy red hats, and red-nosed reindeer with menorah-antlers.  That might be how many Americans celebrate Christmas, but that isn't Christmas. And after trillions of dollars in "systemic" bailouts and a 50% haircut for the Dow, it may not even be how we Americans celebrate Christmas this year.

This may be a very good thing. Now I admit that I am the first person to joyfully reclaim the decoration boxes from hibernation, embark on the gift hunt expedition, and don the season's signature headwear. Defining Christmas as a goodie-hunt has a big buy-in.  Just ask the Black Friday Best Buy staff or your local See's Candy lady.  During economic prosperity it's easy to consume-with-the-flow to try to attain the 'good cheer' that we crave.

There are two problems with this.  The first is that if we just dive into the slew of traditions and expectations that have been perpetuated and spun-off over generations, we can lose all sight of the only thing that makes our celebrations worthwhile.  Strip away the merrily marketed accoutrements for a moment.  What remains?

The second problem is that our shopping frenzies obviously require lots of cash, and everyone is currently hoarding cash.  So instead of ogling Bloomingdale's glitzy bling, maybe we should learn something from some of the poorer countries in the world.  Cash doesn't fuel their meaning making.

In his article, "Christmas Around the World," Hugh Wilson explains that in the Congo, Christians' celebrations generally consist of a simple meal eaten with friends and family and an offering of gifts to Jesus, rather than to one-another.  "Festivities vary from country to country, but Christmas tends to be more about religion and family – and less about presents and pigging out – than most Westerners are used to."  When gifts are exchanged they "tend to be simple and practical, like clothes, pencils, soap and books."

Popular Christmas list items in Iceland's capital this year are "horse meat, secondhand clothing, and used DVDs of The Sound of Music" (the classic, uplifting family flick), reports Jill Lawless in her article, "Icelanders Face Frugal Christmas as Economy Chills."  With a new austerity in the air since the krona's collapse, increase of import prices, layoffs, and bankruptcies, the Icelanders are not about to give up on celebrating the yuletide season.  The trend is to cut back on spending and return to tradition, concludes Lawless.  "'People are sobering up,' said Thorbjorn Broddason, a sociologist at the University of Iceland…'I think this is going to change drastically. People are going to value loyalty and moderation.'"

In Johannesburg, South Africa, this last Sunday before Christmas "was celebrated with a carol service" in a downtown church that "has become a haven for hundreds of Zimbabweans who have fled their nation's collapse," reports Associated Press writer, Donna Bryson in her article, "Christmas bleak for Zimbabweans fleeing collapse." As the songs of the carolers at Central Methodist in Johannesburg touted the message of Christmas Sunday, "William Kandowe, a 36-year-old teacher from Harare, said he was becoming convinced (President) Mugabe would have to be forced out by Zimbabweans."

This Christmas, because of the economic crisis, many of us are rethinking what it is about Christmas that we celebrate.  I have a hunch that Christians in the Congo, Zimbabwe, and even Iceland, have a more acute understanding of the central importance of Christ's coming.  Under the thumb of uncertainty, poverty, and oppression, there is less clutter and complacency dulling the significance the momentous event of our Lord's coming to be with us, in the flesh.  Perhaps, in such hardship, they have developed traditions better equipped to reflect the deepest meaning of Christmas, and address our most essential yearnings, than the tipsy, jolly, credit card-toting habits that many of us have been addicted to.

This year we have a unique opportunity to recognize anew the central pillars of surviving, thriving, and celebration.  While there is nothing inherently wrong with our beloved, festive frills, unless they point us to God and his Son, they are helpless to move us toward the greater vision, courage, and love that should make up the essence of Christmas.  They may even stand in the way.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.

Responses to Princeton DodgeBall Champion Peter Singer:

Hello Dinesh D'Souza, I'm back to joust with you again. Your will always defeat Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others in debate about the existence of God so long as you can lure them into discussing God in terms of human conduct on earth by theists and atheists. There are two dimensions of "God" and religion. One dimension is existence in general and the other dimension is the place of the human being in existence. One has nothing to do with the other. Existence exists. There is an explanation for existence. The human being does not know the explanation for existence except to say that "anything's possible." The human being is very unlikely to be the explanation for existence although this belief is a most understandable human construct and anything's possible. The conduct of theists and atheists in history in terms of their ethics and morality says nothing about the explanation for existence, which we can call "God," or about the creation of existence by a "Creator" or by "Creation" without a creator. Elevation of the human being to a one to one relationship with the explanation for existence is the height of hubris which at least one system of beliefs looks down upon. Why is "heaven" not part of your debates? The entire discussion of God is academic without belief in a heaven that is connected to life on earth so that my nanosecond of existence ensures me of seeing my deceased mother and father, and others who have died before me, in heaven and observing my children, and others, on earth from heaven during their nanosecond of existence. Provided, of course, that I get into heaven which requires my nanosecond of existence on earth plus certain conduct during this nanosecond depending upon my system of beliefs. By the way, how old will we be in heaven? How long is life in heaven? I leave you with these simple questions although I have many more that I hope you will answer as I continue to read your work. Regards, - Norman Henry

Greetings, Is there an audio of D'Sousa's debate with Singer at Princeton? Can you post a link? Thanks, - Richard Price

Dr. D'Souza, Thank you so much for all that you do. My son and I together are reading your book What's So Great about Christianity? with equal pleasure. Are transcripts of this latest Princeton debate available? If so, will you either let us know how to obtain them or send them via email? Thanks, - Stan May, Ph.D.

Prof. Singer has made several good points and several merely ignorant points in his books. Of the latter, one is his citing a 19th Century German [sic!] anthropologist about an Eskimo habit of sending the old folk on an ice floe when they could not take care of themselves. This is simply not true. Nor sensible. It is the old folk who have the savvy which enables the tribe to persist. One especially good point is that about newborn babes. They cannot take care of themselves and thus should be liable for disposal. Prof. Singer’s observation comes down to the simple chronology of abortion: if one can kill the babe in the womb, why not just out of the womb? He remarked that if he believed that a babe in the womb was a human being, then we should all be storming the abortuaries. Prof. Singer does not hesitate to use his grandparent-victims of the Holocaust as arguing points. He should read one of the books of the Bible which his grandparents undoubtedly revered: the Book of Job 38: which begins: “Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?” “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge” about sums up Prof. Singer. - Gabriel Austin

Perhaps someone else ought to have given a review of Dinesh's second debate with Singer. After watching their first debate where Peter Singer had a convincing "win" over D'Souza, it wasn't convincing. Singer will only debate people he believes he can defeat. His logic is impeccable as his knowledge of his subject matter is. Few understand how to win a debate with Singer. Dinesh seems to think a lot of himself thinking he's the best there is to debate "these atheists." What he doesn't realize is that he is a popular author debating an academic philosopher. Finally, putting Peter Singer in the same category of atheists as Christopher Hitchens reveals a lack of understanding of just who these atheists are. - Ray Ciervo

Peter Singer is a philosopher, and not a very good one at that. He is not a biologist. His ignorance of insights provided by evolutionary psychology as to the (biologically determined) development of human morality is total. His dismissal of the worth of the lives of infants is a case in point. There is a reason humans in all cultures respond to infants's faces with the equivalent of the American "Oh, so cute" and "goochi goochi goo." We are biologically primed to respond to the sight of big bright eyes and cute little noses and mouths with warmth and tenderness and caring. This response is not limited to women. A big, tough general strolling through his Army base was seen responding exactly that way to the infant child of one of his officers. Singer's insistence that we humans can make up moral sentiments and their resulting moral systems of taboos and commands is pure nonsense. To wantonly murder infants is such an egregious assault on our very survival as to never have a chance of becoming a regular occurance in any human society. Abortion is different (at least for now) in that we never see the bright big eyes and the cute little features of babies. After all, they're in the womb, hidden from view. This may change as our scanning technology improves. - Sally Morem
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
top
left links right
•A bleak Christmas, the New Year and poor Zimbabweans
•Financial collapse may be as significant as fall of Berlin Wall
 
bottom
about tothesource
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
subscribe email a friend
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
  Julia Thompson
Julia graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Southern California with a degree in Philosophy in 2005.
She is the tothesource roving reporter.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org