Happy Holidays and the Parade of Lights (Updated)

Update: Normally I'd put the update "below the fold," but given that below the fold is so damned far away, I figure it should go up at the top. While I don't necessarily agree with Nathan's response to my post, his reply is worth reading. And, for the record, while I would've skipped out on any of the nastier debate about religion in general, it was a reply that wouldn't have been out of place here.

---

I had fully planned to sit out the debate about Denver's Parade of Lights and our mayor's decision (later rescinded) to retire a "Merry Christmas" banner in favor of a less-Christmassy "Happy Holidays" replacement. In fact, I thought (and think) that it is being spun into a story much larger than the actual issues warrant. They've also become tied together, somehow, although the Parade is not put on by the city and Mayor Hickenlooper had no say in the anti-religious mood of the parade organizers.

Certainly, I had opinions on the subject, but I wasn't sure that they would substantially add to the debate. Patrick asked the question, though, and I'm not the type to duck a question.

What's the Big Deal?
On the first issue, that of the Happy Holidays banner, I find myself wondering what the big deal is. Does it really hurt anyone that Christmas isn't specified? Does it actually change the way I feel about the holiday season? Does it really merit all the hubbub and the talk about Christianity being under attack?

Let's be clear, it is no violation of my rights or a aggressive act when someone chooses to not say, "Merry Christmas." For those that don't celebrate Christmas, there is likely still some celebration of the season--an inclusive "Happy Holidays" doesn't bother me in the least.

But if I see you, I'll still be wishing you a Merry Christmas and I certainly hope that doesn't cause offense.

Oh. There's the Big Deal.
The Parade of Lights was a more interesting issue to me. Given that the parade is put on by a private organization with (mostly) private funds, I would assume that they have the right to exclude anyone that they want. I'm glad that there was no lawsuit filed and I'm even happier that the situation didn't get any worse than it did.

That having been said, why would anyone expect that Christians wouldn't raise their voices in protest against the rules? The church that tried to enter a float wasn't asking for anyone else to be excluded and wasn't asking for a special place, they were simply asking if they could enter a float (at their own cost) into this holiday parade. What, precisely, is so wrong with a church having a float in a parade that celebrates (amongst other things) Christmas?

There was room in the parade for the spirtual- and sexual-preference-oriented Two Spirits group, a Native American organization that celebrates the special place of lesbians and gays in Native American culture. There was room for the Lion Dance--a traditional Chinese dance performed for the Chinese New Year. But there wasn't room for a float that actually said "Merry Christmas" or for singers to sing traditional carols.

Notably, there also presumably wouldn't have been room for a Happy Hanukkah float or any of a number of directly religious themes. For organizers of the parade, celebration of diversity can include sexual orientation and various cultures, but the mere mention of God would be out of bounds.

I do think that there should be standards for presentation and for content--no nekkid woman with barnyard animals on giant penis-shaped floats seems like a pretty good rule, as a ferinstance. Why, though, should a celebration of diversity specifically exclude religious references that are distinctly relevant to a holiday parade.

It's not so much that I find their rules offensive as I find them wildly off base.

So I don't think it odd or untoward that religious groups might work to get the organizers to re-think their rules. In fact, especially since it didn't end up in the courts, I'm pretty pleased with the way the debate has progressed. This isn't a legal issue, and I predict that the Parade of Lights, as a celebration of diversity, will be more inclusive next year.

But some Christian commentators took it a little too far. The talk about being under attack and referencing the war on Christianity was overblown and unnecessary. Even worse was Michelle Malkin's suggestion that we all send lumps of coal to Mayor Hickenlooper.

Let's be clear: Hickenlooper had nothing to do with the Parade of Lights and sending him a ton of coal wouldn't have made a difference in the end. He just had nothing to do with the entire affair. As for the banner, nearly as soon as the Happy Holidays banner was announced, he backtracked and noted he wasn't a Scrooge. Personally, I would have supported him whichever direction he had gone.

The entire Denver-centric Christmas/Holiday affair was much ado about not too damned much. The Parade of Lights will take care of itself in the long run and I'll still celebrate Christmas both as the religious, Christian holiday marking the birth of Jesus and as the secular holiday marking the celebration of capitalism

And on Christmas day, I fully expect to be so deeply involved in my Xbox games that I won't even think about the Parade of Lights or people who get offended by the phrase "Merry Christmas."

Read the Rocky Mountain News article that started this whole thing off.

Posted by zombyboy at December 7, 2004 01:58 PM