Friday, 14 December 2012
memoir writers homework-regrets.
Regrets?Yes,I guess I've had more than my share,but,from a philosophical point of view,I don't know if I would go back and change a lot of things.The thing about changing things is that you would have to change everything about them,though many times the bad things come with unintended consequences that are good.
I wish I'd known a bit more about social justice issues and standing up for right principles the year I was in grade eight.You see,there was a lot going on that year in our city.It was the year the two policemen were murdered,then,at the end of the school year a little girl went missing and was never seen again.It was also the year I had Malcom Ross as a History teacher and came to know that people in our community had political views that could be extreme and grew out of that time and it's events.That year would have been an especially fertile time for moral instruction and learning.But,a person can only grasp so much at one time.
Teachers were to be respected and obeyed.There was no more to be said about it than that.And,to that end I tried to do my best.
The Science teacher was a young,thin blond woman who often dressed in sweat pants and a t-shirt that said"UCLA."I wondered if she really went to UCLA,because I never knew of anyplace you could buy such t-shirts in our town back then.After all,what was wrong with UNB or Mount Allison or Acadia?She would sometimes pose a sort of a pop quiz on the subject matter she was teaching,asking those she called upon to provide oral answers.I had no real problem with this.Most of the time I'd done my homework and never ran afoul of her.The same cannot be said of every student in that class.
One Friday morning,the teacher was conducting her inquisition and called upon a girl who had no idea what to say in response to the teachers question.She couldn't have done the required reading and she just sat there looking like a deer in the headlights.The teacher demanded that she stand up and face the class,then she posed the same question again.When the girl meekly replied that she did not know the answer,the teacher said"there is no excuse for you to not know the answer.You are Stupid."She told the girl,who now looked about to cry,that she would be called upon again on Monday,and that if she didn't have the answer,she would be in trouble.
Monday came,and I think we all knew what was coming.Eventually the teacher called upon this girl again.I can still see the girl,though I don't recall her name.She was a pretty girl,who in my mind looked like a younger version of the science teacher,though perhaps a bit heavier.I never really knew the girl that well.
Again this girl,for whatever reason had no answer for the teachers question.To me,she looked scared half to death.And of course,the teacher responded in the same way as on he Friday before.She stood the girl up at the front of the class and proceeded to brow beat her for what seemed like half the morning,before calling her stupid again and telling her to get out of her class and not to bother coming back until she saw the principal.
The girl opened the door and left.And that is the nature of my regret.I knew that teachers were to be respected.But what I didn't know was that to be respected,you have to be respectable.What I became aware of later was that when a teacher regards a student as stupid,learning usually stops right there.I should have left the classroom too that morning.I should have done the right thing,in support of my classmate,who deserved better than she got that day.I should have got up and walked out and taken as many people with me as I could.But you simply didn't do such things then.Still.I've always wanted to apologize to that girl for not standing with her back then.
I wish I'd known a bit more about social justice issues and standing up for right principles the year I was in grade eight.You see,there was a lot going on that year in our city.It was the year the two policemen were murdered,then,at the end of the school year a little girl went missing and was never seen again.It was also the year I had Malcom Ross as a History teacher and came to know that people in our community had political views that could be extreme and grew out of that time and it's events.That year would have been an especially fertile time for moral instruction and learning.But,a person can only grasp so much at one time.
Teachers were to be respected and obeyed.There was no more to be said about it than that.And,to that end I tried to do my best.
The Science teacher was a young,thin blond woman who often dressed in sweat pants and a t-shirt that said"UCLA."I wondered if she really went to UCLA,because I never knew of anyplace you could buy such t-shirts in our town back then.After all,what was wrong with UNB or Mount Allison or Acadia?She would sometimes pose a sort of a pop quiz on the subject matter she was teaching,asking those she called upon to provide oral answers.I had no real problem with this.Most of the time I'd done my homework and never ran afoul of her.The same cannot be said of every student in that class.
One Friday morning,the teacher was conducting her inquisition and called upon a girl who had no idea what to say in response to the teachers question.She couldn't have done the required reading and she just sat there looking like a deer in the headlights.The teacher demanded that she stand up and face the class,then she posed the same question again.When the girl meekly replied that she did not know the answer,the teacher said"there is no excuse for you to not know the answer.You are Stupid."She told the girl,who now looked about to cry,that she would be called upon again on Monday,and that if she didn't have the answer,she would be in trouble.
Monday came,and I think we all knew what was coming.Eventually the teacher called upon this girl again.I can still see the girl,though I don't recall her name.She was a pretty girl,who in my mind looked like a younger version of the science teacher,though perhaps a bit heavier.I never really knew the girl that well.
Again this girl,for whatever reason had no answer for the teachers question.To me,she looked scared half to death.And of course,the teacher responded in the same way as on he Friday before.She stood the girl up at the front of the class and proceeded to brow beat her for what seemed like half the morning,before calling her stupid again and telling her to get out of her class and not to bother coming back until she saw the principal.
The girl opened the door and left.And that is the nature of my regret.I knew that teachers were to be respected.But what I didn't know was that to be respected,you have to be respectable.What I became aware of later was that when a teacher regards a student as stupid,learning usually stops right there.I should have left the classroom too that morning.I should have done the right thing,in support of my classmate,who deserved better than she got that day.I should have got up and walked out and taken as many people with me as I could.But you simply didn't do such things then.Still.I've always wanted to apologize to that girl for not standing with her back then.
memoir writers homework-a funeral.
Outside,the day was a perfect spring day,the kind that would count as one of a handful of very best days ever.It was the middle of May,cloudless,and neither hot nor cold,but warm,with a slight,fresh breeze.Enough of a breeze to blow away most of the coal smoke that sometimes lingered over Springhill.The trees were newly green and everything was in bloom.
Browns Funeral Home was located on the hill,off Main Street.Like the rest of Springhill,it looked a little less than prosperous.We entered what I would call a large parlor.I certainly wasn't a church.I don't recall seeing any Bibles or songbooks or crosses.There were benches of some sort,but they certainly weren't pews.The casket was at the front of the parlor,not in the center,but to the right as you faced the front.It was open,and inside was the first dead person I'd ever seen.He was dressed in a suit,better than the old gray trousers,gray tweed coat,gray hat and white shirt I'd always remembered him to wear when he was among the living.On that day he looked like a gentleman of some means.There was a flower of some sort,a carnation perhaps fixed to his left lapel.Were you supposed to touch the dead,I wondered.I could,I suppose,touch his hand.I wondered what it would feel like,and I wondered too,if anyone would take offense.
There might have been singing,and most likely a eulogy spoken by someone,though I really don't recall them.As far as I know,my grandfather never graced the inside of a church,so maybe there were no hymns,and ,if there were I'm sure they seemed out of place.All that I can really recall was my father explaining to me that the white flower on my grandfathers lapel had been placed there collectively by his grandchildren,and I recall one of my older cousins crying hysterically behind me,so that she was led away into a private room for a while.
My grandfather died in 1974.I'd last seen him at my Uncle Bill's place about a month before.He had just returned from Albert and everyone remarked how well he looked.I didn't think so.I thought he looked tired.Then he moved into a rooming house in Springhill,where,one night he fell on the stairs and broke a hip.A few days later his heart stopped.At the time of his death,he was an enigma to me.There was so much about the man I didn't understand,and still don't.What I was really wondering about on that day was Heaven and Hell,and where my grandfather had gone,were all that I was told about such places true.
There was a reception later ,at my grandmothers flat,down in the low part of Springhill,close to where the mines used to be.All I recall was that there was a lot of food and a lot of people coming and going all day.And outside,it was the most perfect of days.
Browns Funeral Home was located on the hill,off Main Street.Like the rest of Springhill,it looked a little less than prosperous.We entered what I would call a large parlor.I certainly wasn't a church.I don't recall seeing any Bibles or songbooks or crosses.There were benches of some sort,but they certainly weren't pews.The casket was at the front of the parlor,not in the center,but to the right as you faced the front.It was open,and inside was the first dead person I'd ever seen.He was dressed in a suit,better than the old gray trousers,gray tweed coat,gray hat and white shirt I'd always remembered him to wear when he was among the living.On that day he looked like a gentleman of some means.There was a flower of some sort,a carnation perhaps fixed to his left lapel.Were you supposed to touch the dead,I wondered.I could,I suppose,touch his hand.I wondered what it would feel like,and I wondered too,if anyone would take offense.
There might have been singing,and most likely a eulogy spoken by someone,though I really don't recall them.As far as I know,my grandfather never graced the inside of a church,so maybe there were no hymns,and ,if there were I'm sure they seemed out of place.All that I can really recall was my father explaining to me that the white flower on my grandfathers lapel had been placed there collectively by his grandchildren,and I recall one of my older cousins crying hysterically behind me,so that she was led away into a private room for a while.
My grandfather died in 1974.I'd last seen him at my Uncle Bill's place about a month before.He had just returned from Albert and everyone remarked how well he looked.I didn't think so.I thought he looked tired.Then he moved into a rooming house in Springhill,where,one night he fell on the stairs and broke a hip.A few days later his heart stopped.At the time of his death,he was an enigma to me.There was so much about the man I didn't understand,and still don't.What I was really wondering about on that day was Heaven and Hell,and where my grandfather had gone,were all that I was told about such places true.
There was a reception later ,at my grandmothers flat,down in the low part of Springhill,close to where the mines used to be.All I recall was that there was a lot of food and a lot of people coming and going all day.And outside,it was the most perfect of days.
Monday, 10 December 2012
the kananaskis traveler: op/ed-the strange silence of charlene eve davis.
the kananaskis traveler: op/ed-the strange silence of charlene eve davis.: Perhaps you think of this blog as a place to come and read a personal memoir.That is fine-thanks for your interest.Maybe you enjoy a virtua...
OP/ED-QUALITY OF CARE
For a short time I had a career working with persons who have disabilities.But,in the end,that line of work seemed ill suited to me,and just as likely me for it.Because of differences in ideology with the powers that be,I eventually decided to follow a different career path.For my part,I,having recently left school with a head full of ideals ran full speed ahead into administrators who seemed concerned only with the practical aspects of getting the job done and had very little time for ideals.I found them stodgy and conservative,and,in all likelihood they may well have viewed me as liberal and perhaps too progressive.
When it comes to being labeled liberal,I'll say right off,I make no apologies for my politics,which has as it's cornerstones egalitarianism and social justice.I've always believed,and still do that what I needed to be doing was moving the cause of disabled persons forward,not participating in a system that tries to maintain an often questionable status quo.So,let me just say,as far as disability issues are concerned,they are a big issue for friends that I admire,respect and love.Therefor,I have not fallen off the edge of the earth,but remain interested,informed and engaged.In the coming months,expect to see a number of op/ed entries on these issues on this blog.
To that end,I want to start out by asking a number of questions about a hypothetical situation involving a wide range of hypothetical people.You should not view this situation as real,nor is it the only situation that could be presented involving my questions.The questions,broadly stated involve what sort of information,how much of it,and to whom it should be made available under what circumstances.Let me illustrate by presentin a brief case study,again,hypothetical.What I want you to focus on is largely a question of who has a responsibility to whom,in terms of quality control.
Case Study-Tom has been caring for his aged father,who has had dementia for over a decade.Tom is also a career caregiver,working in a residential setting for an agency,one of two that provide such services in the small city where he lives.
Tom's father also has other children,who are concerned about his well being.However,they live in distance cities.For a number of years,all goes well.But more recently Tom's siblings have come to have an increasing level of concern for the level of care being provided to their father.While at one time Tom was freely speaking to concerns raised by his siblings,more recently he has been withholding information,and not answering directly posed questions.In response to reasonable questions,he often seems defensive and on one occasion,belligerent.A request by one of his siblings to see documentation,appropriate to the care giving trades is met with absolute refusal.Now,eventually Tom's father passes away,not unexpectedly given his poor health.Still,Tom has not assured his siblings that quality of care has been delivered,and since his father is deceased,it is no longer an issue for state agencies to deal with.The issue remains unresolved for a number of months,and in fact is still ongoing.
Now,my concern in this hypothetical mess is,who should be saying what,and to whom.I have my own ideas about this situation,but for the moment I'll let the questions remain rhetorical and save the opinion for another time.
Here are the questions:1.Does the agency for which Tom works have a vested interest in seeing a resolution to this ongoing problem?
2.Do Tom's siblings have a right to use Tom's employer as a court of public opinion in resolving their concerns?Can that right,in fact be stated as a responsibility,and,if so to whom?
3.How should the public view an agency,once informed that they have an employee who refuses to provide documentation of care in a situation not directly related to their job,that does not take issue with that employee?
4.Do consumers of care deserve to know about this situation in the interests of informed consent?If so,who should be providing the buyer beware information to them?Is informed consent violated if they do not know?
As I say,these are just some of the questions that come to mind.While I have some opinions on this matter,for the moment I will defer stating those opinions.For the moment,I simply ask readers to consider the questions,be aware that they are being asked,and ask some questions of their own in regards to these issues.Because,at some point these issues may well visit you where you live.
When it comes to being labeled liberal,I'll say right off,I make no apologies for my politics,which has as it's cornerstones egalitarianism and social justice.I've always believed,and still do that what I needed to be doing was moving the cause of disabled persons forward,not participating in a system that tries to maintain an often questionable status quo.So,let me just say,as far as disability issues are concerned,they are a big issue for friends that I admire,respect and love.Therefor,I have not fallen off the edge of the earth,but remain interested,informed and engaged.In the coming months,expect to see a number of op/ed entries on these issues on this blog.
To that end,I want to start out by asking a number of questions about a hypothetical situation involving a wide range of hypothetical people.You should not view this situation as real,nor is it the only situation that could be presented involving my questions.The questions,broadly stated involve what sort of information,how much of it,and to whom it should be made available under what circumstances.Let me illustrate by presentin a brief case study,again,hypothetical.What I want you to focus on is largely a question of who has a responsibility to whom,in terms of quality control.
Case Study-Tom has been caring for his aged father,who has had dementia for over a decade.Tom is also a career caregiver,working in a residential setting for an agency,one of two that provide such services in the small city where he lives.
Tom's father also has other children,who are concerned about his well being.However,they live in distance cities.For a number of years,all goes well.But more recently Tom's siblings have come to have an increasing level of concern for the level of care being provided to their father.While at one time Tom was freely speaking to concerns raised by his siblings,more recently he has been withholding information,and not answering directly posed questions.In response to reasonable questions,he often seems defensive and on one occasion,belligerent.A request by one of his siblings to see documentation,appropriate to the care giving trades is met with absolute refusal.Now,eventually Tom's father passes away,not unexpectedly given his poor health.Still,Tom has not assured his siblings that quality of care has been delivered,and since his father is deceased,it is no longer an issue for state agencies to deal with.The issue remains unresolved for a number of months,and in fact is still ongoing.
Now,my concern in this hypothetical mess is,who should be saying what,and to whom.I have my own ideas about this situation,but for the moment I'll let the questions remain rhetorical and save the opinion for another time.
Here are the questions:1.Does the agency for which Tom works have a vested interest in seeing a resolution to this ongoing problem?
2.Do Tom's siblings have a right to use Tom's employer as a court of public opinion in resolving their concerns?Can that right,in fact be stated as a responsibility,and,if so to whom?
3.How should the public view an agency,once informed that they have an employee who refuses to provide documentation of care in a situation not directly related to their job,that does not take issue with that employee?
4.Do consumers of care deserve to know about this situation in the interests of informed consent?If so,who should be providing the buyer beware information to them?Is informed consent violated if they do not know?
As I say,these are just some of the questions that come to mind.While I have some opinions on this matter,for the moment I will defer stating those opinions.For the moment,I simply ask readers to consider the questions,be aware that they are being asked,and ask some questions of their own in regards to these issues.Because,at some point these issues may well visit you where you live.
Sunday, 9 December 2012
op/ed-drinking and driving.
Tis the season as they say.And once again,police are out there dealing with one of the less pleasant aspects of the Christmas Season.Drinking and driving.Because every year,no matter what the law is,no matter how often they are urged to take a cab,and no matter how many tragedies occur,some people either don't get it or simply don't care.So every year in December,police operate roadside checkstops to round up those people.But sometime I wonder,what is the point?Are they wasting their time and my tax dollars sending these clowns off to court?
If a recent court case in Edmonton,Alberta is any indication,there really isn't much point.Because what is the point in handing over an offender.when all the courts can manage to come up with is a two year jail sentence for someone convicted of impaired driving for the fifteenth time?An offender who has a similar number of convictions for driving while suspended?The judge in the case notes that this person"isn't a career criminal."Excuse me?Does this brilliant jurist also think the Pope isn't Catholic and that Israel isn't Jewish?If a two year sentence for this offender cannot be explained by a judge's unbelievable stupidity and ignorance,then it must be explained by laws that are poorly conceived and/or not properly applied.
Would someone out there please explain something to me?Maybe there is a Canadian lawyer out there that can edify me as to what I'm missing?You see,I was under the distinct impression that the Criminal Code Of Canada contained a provision for dealing with dangerous offenders.I was under the impression that they could be jailed indefinitely. Was I wrong?And if I am not wrong,why isn't this legislation being applied to offenders who will not engage in treatment,have zero concern for others and continue to offend in spite of all reasonable efforts to deal with their deviance?
My understanding is that dangerous offenders are normally held to be those with an aggravated and repeated pattern of criminality involving sexual offenses or serious assaults up to and including murder.But why is an offender being convicted of a fifteenth impaired driving charge any less dangerous?He's not!It's only a matter of time and chance.Clearly this man has socio-pathic tendencies as evidenced by behavior.If dangerous offender legislation cannot be directed toward offenders of this nature,then why do we have it.Oh,I see,nobody has been killed.Yet.That must be what we are waiting for.What a cowardly,spineless cop out.Dangerous offender hearings should be mandatory if an offender has any more than three convictions for drunk driving.Release can then be made contingent upon treatment and not on the expiry of a warrant at the end of some arbitrarily imposed sentence.
And,while we are at it,maybe we could think about making judges and prosecutors accountable to the electorate.Do you suppose that might make them a bit more sensitive to public outrage?Just a thought.
If a recent court case in Edmonton,Alberta is any indication,there really isn't much point.Because what is the point in handing over an offender.when all the courts can manage to come up with is a two year jail sentence for someone convicted of impaired driving for the fifteenth time?An offender who has a similar number of convictions for driving while suspended?The judge in the case notes that this person"isn't a career criminal."Excuse me?Does this brilliant jurist also think the Pope isn't Catholic and that Israel isn't Jewish?If a two year sentence for this offender cannot be explained by a judge's unbelievable stupidity and ignorance,then it must be explained by laws that are poorly conceived and/or not properly applied.
Would someone out there please explain something to me?Maybe there is a Canadian lawyer out there that can edify me as to what I'm missing?You see,I was under the distinct impression that the Criminal Code Of Canada contained a provision for dealing with dangerous offenders.I was under the impression that they could be jailed indefinitely. Was I wrong?And if I am not wrong,why isn't this legislation being applied to offenders who will not engage in treatment,have zero concern for others and continue to offend in spite of all reasonable efforts to deal with their deviance?
My understanding is that dangerous offenders are normally held to be those with an aggravated and repeated pattern of criminality involving sexual offenses or serious assaults up to and including murder.But why is an offender being convicted of a fifteenth impaired driving charge any less dangerous?He's not!It's only a matter of time and chance.Clearly this man has socio-pathic tendencies as evidenced by behavior.If dangerous offender legislation cannot be directed toward offenders of this nature,then why do we have it.Oh,I see,nobody has been killed.Yet.That must be what we are waiting for.What a cowardly,spineless cop out.Dangerous offender hearings should be mandatory if an offender has any more than three convictions for drunk driving.Release can then be made contingent upon treatment and not on the expiry of a warrant at the end of some arbitrarily imposed sentence.
And,while we are at it,maybe we could think about making judges and prosecutors accountable to the electorate.Do you suppose that might make them a bit more sensitive to public outrage?Just a thought.
Saturday, 8 December 2012
Happy Holidays??
Jews and Muslims are not the problem.They have their own religious beliefs and traditions,often very different from my own,but they,for the most part get a very fundamental truth that the so called progressive thinking,politically correct anti-religionists miss.That is,that I,like a good many people am a Christian and that I celebrate Christmas.And for the most part,Muslims and Jews have no problem with that.They are more than happy to greet me by saying "Merry Christmas."
So why do the anti-religious continue to insist that the word "Christmas"cannot help offending anyone who is not of the Christian faith?Believe me,as my Jewish and Muslim friends do,that this is not my intent.And if you happen to be anti-religious,get used to it,because I intend to go on using this obnoxious word,as offensive as it may be to you,for as long as I draw breath.It's time you took ownership of what offends you instead of passing it off to others.
It was explained to me last week why the term"Happy Holidays"was more appropriate than"Merry Christmas"The word"Holiday",by terms of this explanation,should be rendered "Holy Day."Seems reasonable to me,and I will accept that logic as far as it goes,but my particular holiday,or Holy Day,if you prefer has a name which indicates the purpose of it's observance.Could it be that part of the word that is what really offends you?Just wondering.Again,nobody would mind if you took ownership of your ideology.Because you insist that by saying "Happy Holidays"or "Seasons Greetings",you are being inclusive and inoffensive.But is that true?Really?
You see,here is the problem that I have.Christians,Jews,and indeed all religious persons have observances and traditions associated with their particular belief.And as much as anti-religionists want to deny the fact,so do they.I'm not exactly certain of what it is every anti-religionist believes,but I am certain that they have raised atheism and agnosticism to the status of religion.And that religion is an especially intolerant one,though it rides on a wave of political correctness.
As a Christian,I have no problem with wishing Jewish people Happy Hanukkah.To me it is a simple matter of civility.The two holidays occur in the same season,so perhaps Seasons Greetings would suffice,but that is to deny the real significance of a particular observance.And,moreover,it is appropriate for another reason.When we talk of Christian values,what we really mean is Judeo-Christian values.Christianity developed through God's promise to Abraham and is revealed throughout the totality of Jewish History.It's purpose,and Christ's identity was revealed through Jewish Prophets,so that on that first Christmas Morning,He would be recognizable to all mankind.Further,Christs apostles clearly understood His teachings in a uniquely Jewish context.So,while we celebrate different holidays,if you are Jewish,let me wish you a very Happy Hanukkah.
Now,as to you anti-religionists,if I knew what you celebrated in your expression of your lack of faith,I would also happily extend appropriate greetings.I don't want to say "Seasons Greeting"as that would be denial of the reasons for your celebration,but,as to what you believe,I must confess ignorance.Perhaps we could invent a holiday so that you don't feel so left out at what must seem to you to be a rather gloomy time of year,given the lack of a belief in God.Maybe we could deify Charles Darwins birthday,or perhaps call it Richard Dawkins Day.Or perhaps celebrating the Slaughter Of The Innocents would be appropriate,seeing the effort that seems to be directed at doing that covertly anyway.And,of course,there would be a need for some appropriate traditions such as maybe making gingerbread monkeys,fish and dinosaurs,or hanging variously evolved monkeys on some sort of a tree,or perhaps reading passages from Bertrand Russell as opposed to Dylan Thomas.Of course you would likely want some classic seasonal films as well.The one on The Scopes Monkey Trial comes immediately to mind,but "It's A Wonderful Life "would likely have to end on a somewhat different note.Or maybe a film called "Yes Virginia,There is a Bonobo/Neanderthal/Human."
In the meantime,that tree I bring into the house is not an Xmas tree,or a holiday tree.It's a Christmas tree.I'm not bringing it into the house to celebrate a winter holiday or a seasonal holiday.I'm bringing it in to celebrate Christmas.The star and the angel at the top of that tree have Christian meaning,as does the nativity scene and the wise men and the manger.And my celebration of Christmas is in no way intended to insult people of other belief systems.In fact,Happy Chuck Darwin Day.Now would you please run along while I celebrate my particular holiday in the manner it was intended to be celebrated.
So why do the anti-religious continue to insist that the word "Christmas"cannot help offending anyone who is not of the Christian faith?Believe me,as my Jewish and Muslim friends do,that this is not my intent.And if you happen to be anti-religious,get used to it,because I intend to go on using this obnoxious word,as offensive as it may be to you,for as long as I draw breath.It's time you took ownership of what offends you instead of passing it off to others.
It was explained to me last week why the term"Happy Holidays"was more appropriate than"Merry Christmas"The word"Holiday",by terms of this explanation,should be rendered "Holy Day."Seems reasonable to me,and I will accept that logic as far as it goes,but my particular holiday,or Holy Day,if you prefer has a name which indicates the purpose of it's observance.Could it be that part of the word that is what really offends you?Just wondering.Again,nobody would mind if you took ownership of your ideology.Because you insist that by saying "Happy Holidays"or "Seasons Greetings",you are being inclusive and inoffensive.But is that true?Really?
You see,here is the problem that I have.Christians,Jews,and indeed all religious persons have observances and traditions associated with their particular belief.And as much as anti-religionists want to deny the fact,so do they.I'm not exactly certain of what it is every anti-religionist believes,but I am certain that they have raised atheism and agnosticism to the status of religion.And that religion is an especially intolerant one,though it rides on a wave of political correctness.
As a Christian,I have no problem with wishing Jewish people Happy Hanukkah.To me it is a simple matter of civility.The two holidays occur in the same season,so perhaps Seasons Greetings would suffice,but that is to deny the real significance of a particular observance.And,moreover,it is appropriate for another reason.When we talk of Christian values,what we really mean is Judeo-Christian values.Christianity developed through God's promise to Abraham and is revealed throughout the totality of Jewish History.It's purpose,and Christ's identity was revealed through Jewish Prophets,so that on that first Christmas Morning,He would be recognizable to all mankind.Further,Christs apostles clearly understood His teachings in a uniquely Jewish context.So,while we celebrate different holidays,if you are Jewish,let me wish you a very Happy Hanukkah.
Now,as to you anti-religionists,if I knew what you celebrated in your expression of your lack of faith,I would also happily extend appropriate greetings.I don't want to say "Seasons Greeting"as that would be denial of the reasons for your celebration,but,as to what you believe,I must confess ignorance.Perhaps we could invent a holiday so that you don't feel so left out at what must seem to you to be a rather gloomy time of year,given the lack of a belief in God.Maybe we could deify Charles Darwins birthday,or perhaps call it Richard Dawkins Day.Or perhaps celebrating the Slaughter Of The Innocents would be appropriate,seeing the effort that seems to be directed at doing that covertly anyway.And,of course,there would be a need for some appropriate traditions such as maybe making gingerbread monkeys,fish and dinosaurs,or hanging variously evolved monkeys on some sort of a tree,or perhaps reading passages from Bertrand Russell as opposed to Dylan Thomas.Of course you would likely want some classic seasonal films as well.The one on The Scopes Monkey Trial comes immediately to mind,but "It's A Wonderful Life "would likely have to end on a somewhat different note.Or maybe a film called "Yes Virginia,There is a Bonobo/Neanderthal/Human."
In the meantime,that tree I bring into the house is not an Xmas tree,or a holiday tree.It's a Christmas tree.I'm not bringing it into the house to celebrate a winter holiday or a seasonal holiday.I'm bringing it in to celebrate Christmas.The star and the angel at the top of that tree have Christian meaning,as does the nativity scene and the wise men and the manger.And my celebration of Christmas is in no way intended to insult people of other belief systems.In fact,Happy Chuck Darwin Day.Now would you please run along while I celebrate my particular holiday in the manner it was intended to be celebrated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)