Recovering the Magic of Christmas
By John W. Whitehead, Founder and President of The Rutherford Institute
When I was a child, Christmas was the best time of the year. And what made it so exciting was that everyone seemed to join in the fun. There was a Santa in every store, songs like “Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer” played on the radio, and people generally acknowledged that the day had special meaning because of the Christ Child—thus the reason for the Christmas season.
But times have changed. We have grown more cynical and weary—the hallmarks of our materialistic culture. In fact, the season for giving has turned into the season for getting. Even before the Thanksgiving turkey is gobbled up, shopping malls are decorated and playing Christmas music to get people in a buying mood.
Not only does greed now dominate the season, but a pervasive political correctness is doing away with the true celebration of Christmas. This is no more so than in the public schools, where musical programs omit all Christmas carols. Others replace “Merry Christmas” greetings with the more saccharine “Happy Holidays.” Still others eliminate angels and Santa Claus as being too religious. And some schools even outlaw the colors red and green, saying they’re Christmas colors.
The Christmas phobia has even invaded higher education. For example, this year, Florida Gulf Coast University has banned all holiday decorations on campus and cancelled a popular greeting card design contest, replacing it with an ugly sweater competition. The reason: school officials don’t want to offend anyone who might be disturbed by the mention of “Christmas.”
In many cities, the Christmas tree is now referred to in more Orwellian terms as a “community tree.” And Christmas parties at work are now winter parties where people whisper “Merry Christmas,” as if they’re dealing with pornography.
Add to this silliness a new campaign by the American Humanist Association. Ripping off lyrics from “Santa Claus is Coming to Town,” the group is running ads that proclaim, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”
But Christmas is not, nor was it ever, intended just for religious people. Even the Bible is clear on this point. As the angels proclaimed at Christ’s birth, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward all men.”
Indeed, the birth of the Christ Child signaled that peace could be restored to a troubled world. People could overcome their petty disputes and divisive egos and work together for a better world for everyone, especially the poor and downtrodden. In fact, when Jesus became a man, he made clear that God favored the meek, the poor, the persecuted and the peacemakers over the rich and warmongers. What a message—one that our fractured world so desperately needs.
Sadly, the true Christmas story as represented by the baby Jesus has little to do with how we have come to celebrate the holiday. Isn’t there something more important than receiving? Isn’t the true meaning of Christmas about giving and helping the needy? Isn’t that what we should be teaching our children?
It seems that a religious holiday would be a good opportunity to celebrate something wholesome and good. Rather than thinking about the height of the selling season, why can’t it be a season of reflection and joy? Why can’t it be a time to step back and meditate on the original reasons behind the holiday? Why can’t it be a day to share our blessings with those who are in need?
Fortunately, we live in a country where families can still celebrate their religious holidays with freedom. We can still attend religious services, set up manger scenes and sing traditional Christmas carols. We can still read the Christmas story to our children and tell them the real reason for the season. Should you care to reclaim for yourself and your family some semblance of what Christmas really means, here are a few suggestions:
Take time to read the Christmas story found in Luke 2:1-20. Make “peace on earth, goodwill to all men” your motto for the New Year.
These are difficult times for many. Thus, sacrifice some portion of what you would spend on family and friends to help a needy family. What a great opportunity to teach our children about the spiritual reality of life. Let that be your gift in the true spirit of Christmas.
Count your blessings. And when you’re done counting them, say a prayer for the less fortunate: the hungry, the homeless, the lonely, the destitute and the sick. Resolve to do your part to make a difference in the world—even if it’s just in your apartment building or neighborhood.
Teach your children to give of themselves and their time unselfishly. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Adopt a family for Christmas. Invite someone who might otherwise spend the holiday alone to share in your Christmas festivities.
By diverting the focus, in our homes at least, from the “give me” attitude to a sharing spirit, maybe we can recapture the awe and gratitude that Christmas carols say is the greatest gift ever given to humanity.
-------------------------------
WC: 842
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks) is now available in bookstores and online. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact marketing@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

Feeling the "magic" in Christmas is something that YOU decide to do and to make happen in your own home and life. It doesn't depend upon how others view the holiday or upon forcing others to decorate, act or greet one another according to your personal preferences.
In fact, I'd venture to say that spending a great deal of time worrying about what OTHER people do during the holiday season would likely do more to REMOVE "magic" from Christmas, rather than add it. Christmas is supposed to be about generosity and giving to others. How about giving others a break? How about giving others the right to celebrate (or not celebrate) in the manner which best suits their wants, needs and beliefs?
i dont care how they celebrate so why cant i celebrate the way i want..i am not forcing anyone to decorate anyway or to greet anyone anyway but i should be allowd the same consideration.. if i want to decorate it is none of their business and if i want to say merry christmas who the heck am i hurting...no one is not giving others the right it seems they are stopping us from having our rights..
No on is telling you you cannot decorate your home for Christmas or wish others a "Merry Christmas" or celebrate Christmas in the manner of your own choosing. The problem is that some who call themselves " Christians " are demanding that society celebrate in the manner which best suits their own personal desires, and that's simply not a reasonable demand.
Please give me a concrete example of how you are being prohibited from personally celebrating Christmas.
i dont see any one demanding society to celebrate in any manner it is the other way around...they are demanding traditions be stopped that people have always done.. like lighting trees in town halls..that is not hurting them if they dont like it dont look..they are demanding nativity scenes be taken down..why cant people who want them have them even in public places. if they dont like it they dont have to look...its like they are afraid if they look at anything religious they might believe..if not why are they so afraid of having them.its kinda like the vampire lore with the cross afraid to look....if it offends them then they can turn their heads but allow the people who want them to have them....who cares if people are so stuffy that they dont want to believe in anything..that is their right but i have a right to be able to go to the town hall and look at the 10 commandments..if they dont like it turn their heads..what is it hurting????? i really think they are scared to death it might make them believe..
The question is not the celebration of Christmas, it is the use of public spaces for religious purposes.
why do the people who are not religious worry so much if there is a nativity scene..are they afraid that if they look at it they might start to believe????? i think so.....if not they would just turn their heads and ignore it...if i dont like something i just ignore it.. as a tax payer i have a right to look at a navtivity scene in a public place and if they dont like it why cant they just ignore it ..it seems to me they feel they are the only ones who have rights the non religious or any other religious besides christianity ...it is real old ....when i was a child i loved going to the santa parade in town ..now my grandchildren dont have that right because someone decided to gripe about the parade and now they stopped it ...that is sad...why do they care so much...what is wrong with religion being in the public..i have never heard an ligitimate reason yet..only might offend someone well i am offended that we cant have the things of the past and i am a person with rights to......give me one good ligitimate reason not to have a nativity scene in a public park???? one reason besides it might offend someone else.. it does not offend me if i see other jahova witness comeing to my door with their pamplets.. i dont believe the way they do and i could raise a fuss call the law and act like an idiot but i politely take their litature and thow it in the trash after they are gone...so why cant a musleum pass a nativity scene and turn away and go to their own place..what are they afraid of ?????....i dont believe in religion taught in schools it confuses children but in public places just to have a symbol ????? to be able to light a town square christmas tree without some fanatical idiot and yes christians are not the only fanatics...it seems in this day and time the non believers are worse fanatical than christians or they would just ignore it and go on..my question what are they afraid of????
why do the people who are not religious worry so much if there is a nativity scene..are they afraid that if they look at it they might start to believe?????
Hardly… for myself at least I do not want to see my money wasted on a display that I find pointless.
When a city government (or other such government agency) sets up a Nativity scene they are making an official statement regarding religion … and I find that that violates the US Constitution.
“when i was a child i loved going to the santa parade in town ..now my grandchildren dont have that right because someone decided to gripe about the parade and now they stopped it”
How do you think that non Christian children felt about the ‘Santa parade’?
“give me one good ligitimate reason not to have a nativity scene in a public park????”
That depends on who puts it there. If a church group rents the space that is open to anyone to use then I see no reason to deny them their display… but if it is put up by the city, using city funds, by city employees, without equal access to other groups then I would say that it is quite legitimate to request that the display be taken down.
“i dont believe the way they do and i could raise a fuss call the law and act like an idiot but i politely take their litature and thow it in the trash after they are gone...”
Seems rather disingenuous, as well as wasteful… I just decline to take the literature.
“so why cant a musleum pass a nativity scene and turn away and go to their own place..what are they afraid of ?????”
Are we talking about a Nativity scene on your property (or a churches property) or a Nativity scene on public property (in a town square or a park)? If it is the former then yes they can just ‘go to their own place’ but if it is the latter then you have to remember that such spaces (town squares, town halls, parks, public schools ) are not just ‘your’ space… but rather it is all the residents space.
“my question what are they afraid of????”
What fear?
How would you react if your city council set up a display honoring Odin or Horus-Re?
So, according to your logic, the nativity scene put up by a city government violates the constitution ?
It would then seem to follow that the state could not recognize any religion , be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, even any 'New Age' religion such as Scientology. Hence, there should be no religious holidays granted by either Federal or State government as to do so would make 'an official statement regarding religion', which you find Unconstitutional. Is that indeed what you said?
If so, should we also discount Thanksgiving as a holiday, as it was ostensibly started by a bunch of ill-prepared wanna-be settlers who themselves had left their country due to persecution because of what they believed?
As I understand it, the provisions in the United States Constitution were made in order that a State-run/State-sponsored 'religious institution' could not be created by law . There were many such institutions in Europe and the Mideast, be they Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and even Buddhist. The flaw here would be in thinking that the state must not recognize any religion because it must not recognize any particular one.
How very tolerant.
“So, according to your logic, the nativity scene put up by a city government violates the constitution ?”
Yes. If it is put up by the city then that is an official endorsement of religion . If it is put up on public lands without going through the same process that a similar display from another religion would have to go through, then it is similarly an endorsement of religion. Would you want your town council to erect displays to another religion, grant that religion’s holidays as free time off, and ignore your religion?
“Hence, there should be no religious holidays granted by either Federal or State government as to do so would make 'an official statement regarding religion', which you find Unconstitutional. Is that indeed what you said?”
Yes, you are indeed correct. If the government wants to grant Christmas as a Federal Holiday then why not the Winter Solstice or Hanukah? Why do those who follow non-Christian belief systems have to burn vacation when they want to celebrate their holidays, while Christians get a free pass?
“If so, should we also discount Thanksgiving as a holiday, as it was ostensibly started by a bunch of ill-prepared wanna-be settlers who themselves had left their country due to persecution because of what they believed?”
Thanksgiving qualifies as well, though that line is a bit blurrier then the outright religious holidays (Thanksgiving is more of a cultural holiday then a religious one like Christmas or Easter).
“The flaw here would be in thinking that the state must not recognize any religion because it must not recognize any particular one.”
Aren’t those the same thing? What is the difference between recognizing any religion and any one religion… unless you are willing to recognize all relgions.
The difference here is that we are not talking about some sort of arbitrary religious display… we are talking about the specific act of a city/state/federal government putting up iconography of one religion. This is distinct from allowing groups to put up displays on public property (which can be handled through a series of permits and fees).
“How very tolerant.”
Thanks, I do try.
It is not about stopping people from celebrating Christmas, but rather not rubbing Christmas in the face of those who do not celebrate it.
Ah.
Therefore; if the Obamas were to have a Christmas tree, they would then be essentially be promoting one religion . Similarly, if they had an Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn, that would be promoting one religion over another. One more question:
Why is it that the goverment employs men in the armed forces as chaplains? Isnt that also the promoting of one religion, unless all are absolutely equally represented?
Happy Holidays!
Therefore; if the Obamas were to have a Christmas tree, they would then be essentially be promoting one religion .
If they were to have a big White House Christmas tree then yes... but if they had a small tree in their private apartments in the White House then no.
"Why is it that the goverment employs men in the armed forces as chaplains? Isnt that also the promoting of one religion, unless all are absolutely equally represented?"
I do believe that the chaplains in the armed forces are a violation, even though they are more equally representing.
Besides chaplains in general bother me... there is something not right about blessing something you are not willing to fight for yourself.
So big it takes a crane to lift Rahm high enough to light it. Do you take offense to that also?
Or do you just hate Christianity?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
“Or do you just hate Christianity?”
A further point. I do not hate Christianity… I don’t hate religion in general (though I do despise the things that people do in the name of their religion). I just see it as a meaningless superstition, of no greater validity then carrying a rabbits foot or throwing coins in a fountain.
Does John Q Public's observance of their faith impact your life or deprive you of your rights?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
As originally drafted, the Constitution denies the congress the right to make any law respecting any religion . The intent here, I believe, was to prevent the creation of a state church /synagogue/mosque. There are other religions that may not hold the same beliefs; I have no problem with that.
The difficulty I have is the change from 'Freedom of Religion' to 'Freedom FROM Religion'. Certainly no religion should run the government ; we are not Iran. The question then is just what exactly defines a religion? If Atheism can be defined as a religion, then 'Freedom FROM Religion' breaks its own premise by asserting a 'religion' ( atheism ) over government. But that is another argument for another time. My concerns are for those people manning soup kitchens and other humanitarian aid efforts under the auspices of a religion. They are accused of pushing one particular religion, when in fact they generally take pains to make sure that they dont push any religion, church, denomination, etc. MrBooks logic, if taken to the extreme, would do away with such soup kitchens and any other religion-sponsored humanitarian aid, regardless of the religion involved. Some hospital chains would probably close their doors, too. I doubt that such is MrBooks intent. However, having been religious for well over 50 years myself now, I can definitely say that there is a war on Christmas as well as on religion in general.
“The difficulty I have is the change from 'Freedom of Religion' to 'Freedom FROM Religion'. Certainly no religion should run the government ; we are not Iran. The question then is just what exactly defines a religion? If Atheism can be defined as a religion, then 'Freedom FROM Religion' breaks its own premise by asserting a 'religion' ( atheism ) over government.”
So by not honoring a specific religions beliefs you are advancing atheism? You are in kind of a logical paradox there… If no display on Christmas = Atheism then doesn’t no display on Hanukah also = Atheism? Do we now have to have displays for every religion whenever they have a celebration? If not giving people time off for Christmas is an assault on Christian beliefs then isn’t not giving people time off for the Sumer Solstice an assault on Wiccan beliefs?
Could I declare an Atheist holiday and then claim that my beliefs were being discriminated against if the government doesn’t put up displays and give me time off?
“MrBooks logic, if taken to the extreme, would do away with such soup kitchens and any other religion-sponsored humanitarian aid, regardless of the religion involved.”
How so? There is nothing preventing private individuals from forming organizations and using their own time / money to run a soup kitchen.
The separation is between Church (religion) and State (government). As long as it is not the Government acting or free use of government resources then I fail to see the issue.
“Some hospital chains would probably close their doors, too.”
If they are privately funded then I don’t see why they would have to.
“However, having been religious for well over 50 years myself now, I can definitely say that there is a war on Christmas as well as on religion in general.”
There may be a war on government sponsored Christmas displays… but nobody has argued that Christians should not be able to practice their beliefs, just that they should do so just like everyone else.
When the government itself goes about promoting religion then yes it does.
I have no problem with people putting up Christmas trees in their own homes, decorating their own houses, or putting displays in front of their Churches, or renting space in the town square. But the line is crossed as soon as any religion gets free run of public spaces.
How does it hurt you when Rahm Emanuel lights the National Menorah?
Before I told you, you didn't even know about it.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Well a Menorah that big would be pretty awesome.
But yes, a huge Menorah would be a religious display... and that would not be appropriate.
"That is unconstitutional!" I guess if it were not Obama in office you'd be all over this, eh?
Your silence on this is deafening.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
didn't I just say that it would not be appropriate?
You called this very thing "unconstitutional. Scroll up, if you don't believe or remember.
Now it is "Inappropriate." lol.
And you barely touch on it. It almost seems like you are condoning it. "Just this once". Besides... You can't criticize Obama-- He's black. Right?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
“You called this very thing "unconstitutional. Scroll up, if you don't believe or remember.”
And if it were a government sponsored Menorah then it would be… but looking over the website of the associated group it appears to be run by a private group. The question would then be what steps the group had to go through in order to put up their display… as long as that process is open to all groups then the Menorah is well within the Constitution.
“Now it is "Inappropriate." lol.”
Well from a further reading it strikes me as being just about square… a perfectly legitimate use of public space.
“And you barely touch on it. It almost seems like you are condoning it. "Just this once". Besides... You can't criticize Obama-- He's black. Right?”
The difference between this and the White House Christmas tree is that it appears to be funded completely through private donations and run by a non-government agency.
I think we are making progress here.
I'm with you that the Menorah is constitutional. Even though it is on public lands, it is funded privately.
You know... This reminds me of another religious symbol on public lands. The Mojave cross.
I know you can excuse this menorah, since it was Obama's administration which allowed it, of course, but can you apply the same tolerance to another religious symbol which has the same circumstances.
Either the menorah is unconstitutional, like the cross;
Or the cross is constitutional, like the menorah.
Or--
Whatever Obama approves is to be excused at any cost by his army of apologists, and you have rank.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
“You know... This reminds me of another religious symbol on public lands. The Mojave cross.”
Except that the cross is a permanent feature, one that is maintained on government property free of charge.
“I know you can excuse this menorah, since it was Obama's administration which allowed it, of course, but can you apply the same tolerance to another religious symbol which has the same circumstances.”
The ‘National Menorah’ started back during President Jimmy Carter… and it would not fall to the Obama administration to approve or disapprove it. It is the city of Washington D.C. that oversees the National Mall, and it falls to them to approve such displays (more likely there is a committee within the DC government that
“Either the menorah is unconstitutional, like the cross;
Or the cross is constitutional, like the menorah.”
As I pointed out above, the Menorah is a temporary structure constructed for the specific purposes of a religious celebration. Paid for with private funds and subjected to the same process that anyone else seeking to do such would have to go through. The cross is maintained free of charge and is a permanent structure.
Also, weren’t you arguing that the cross was a non-religious symbol? That it was a generic symbol representing the dead? Doesn’t that mean that the attempt to remove it has nothing to do with a so called ‘War on Christmas’?
“Whatever Obama approves is to be excused at any cost by his army of apologists, and you have rank.”
As I pointed out above, it is not the place of the Obama Administration to approve or disapprove of the Menorah.
Weren't you arguing that the ACLU had a good reason to demand the Mojave Cross be destroyed even if the land it sits upon is traded, at a profit to the Government, making the cross a private structure on private lands?
As for the menorah being more specifically associated to religion than the cross; doesn't that further my observation that it would be unconstitutional under your criteria?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/13/rahm-emanuel-lights-natio_n_390552.html
Be careful up there, Rahm. You are a literal, and figurative, lightning rod.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.