What If Christmas Was Real?

O hush the noise, ye men of strife,
And hear the angels sing.
(It Came Upon a Midnight Clear, 1849)

What if Christmas was real? Oh, I don't mean "What if the Christmas story was true?" I mean, what if all those Christmas carols were really how people who profess to celebrate Christmas actually lived their lives and saw the world? What if the warm glow of charity that spreads over this country in late December managed to motivate and inform the lives of Christians all year long?

That would be a much bigger task than you might think, because the law of love that is supposedly the philisophical and theological basis of Christianity¹ is in disfavor among the most vocal Christians in America. In fact, I've noticed a certain sneering contempt for love and all the softer and more tender human emotions from most fundamentalist Christians, coupled with a disdain of doing good works, helping people in need, or basically doing any of the things Jesus talked about when he said that whatever you did to the least of his brethren, you did to him. ²

Of course, George Lakoff would tell us that if the facts don't fit the frames, the facts bounce off, and the fact that love is the foundational law of Christianity has done some serious bouncing in recent years. Social programs like health care, prenatal care, school lunches, even public schools and hopsitals themselves - not to mention social security, welfare, and aid to families with dependent children - are all condemned as liberal plots to undermine the Holy Family - not the one in that Bethlehem manger, but the Sacred American Nuclear Family, that recent American innovation that has somehow become the very unquestioned definition of family and of course, of Family Values.

Affirmative action, civil rights for gay people, fair and open voting - all are out as big government and enabling weakness and sin.

In 1958, Harry Belafonte recorded a stunning version of the Christmas carol "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day," in which, upon hearing the bells ringing "Peace on earth, goodwill to men," he sang:

And in despair, I bow'd my head:
"There is no peace on earth," I said,
"For hate is strong and mocks the song,
Of Peace on earth, good will to men."

I don't suppose I'm imagining the bitterness in the voice of Belafonte, who two years before recording this song had met Martin Luther King, who sent the money to bail King and other jailed protesters out of the Birmingham City Jail, who financed the Freedom Rides and  voter-registration drives in the South, and who in the same year he recorded the carol joined Bayard Rustin in leading the youth march for integrated schools.

Truly He taught us to love one another
His law is love and His gospel is peace
Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother
And in His name all oppression shall cease
(Oh, Holy Night, 1847)

I'm  sure I'm not the first person to think that Christmas, like Christianity and indeed, like America itself, is a really good idea that people  ought to try some time. I look forward to the day I see it.

NOTE 1:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)

"And he answered and said, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself'." (Luke 10:27)

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." (John 13:34)

"And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question." (Mark 12:28-34)

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.....Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." (Rom 13:8-10)

NOTE 2:

"Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;  for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you
welcomed me,  I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you
took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.'  Then the righteous
will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me''." (Matthew 25: 35-40)

Comments

[coturnix]

If you REALLY want to understand US politics and the 2004 election, you need to combine Lakoff's "Moral Politics" not with Frank, but with Stephen Ducat's "The Wimp Factor" and Michael Parenti's "Superpatriotism". Also, you should read my blog - there are at least 20 Lakoff-inspired posts.

[coturnix]

http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/12/call-for-submissions.html

[Brandon Berg]

Coercive wealth redistribution is not the only form of charity (and is arguably not charitable at all), and to smear those who oppose it as uncharitable is either improbably foolish or despicably disingenuous. Either way, I expected better from you.

[Christie]

Brandon, my guess (and perhaps I'm wrong) is that you expected "better" of me in part because you and I don't speak the same language here. I've said before on the list we both belong to, that I don't mind paying my taxes, or the idea of paying taxes. I don't. I consider it a fair and (in concept) extremely efficient way of structuring and funding a society. I believe that certain things work better when done by as large a group as possible, such as interstate highways and the funding of public health or hot lunches for children.

I prefer to live in a society that runs in this way, and one which funds social programs based on compassion rather than social engineering. That is the nation I want to live in, and of course, it's my right to advocate for that just as it's yours to advocate for something else.

My entire objection to libertarianism, and the reason I am not a libertarian, is that I believe it increases human suffering for ideological reasons. In short, I believe it lacks compassion and empathy. So your criticism is, from your perspective, quite correct: I believe those who oppose government-funded social programs that help those in need regardless of whether they "deserve" it or not, and regardless of whether it matches their standards of social engineering or not, to be uncharitable and to create a less happy, functional nation.

Does this mean I LIKE all the choices government has made about what to do with my tax money? Hell no. I abhor waste, and I especially abhor social engineering and micromanagement. That's probably why you expected "better" from me, because you've seen that side of me. But it does not follow that just because I don't like exactly how it's being done, I don't think it should be done at all, any more than getting a bad hair cut in the past makes me decide not to get one again in the future.

[Brandon Berg]

I cannot speak for all others, but my opposition to the welfare state is based as much on concerns about its detrimental long-term effects on standards of living as it is on my moral distaste for coercion, and your cavalier dismissal of liberalism as purely ideological suggests to me that you don't really understand it well enough to reject it.

But that's beside the point. Regardless of who's right from an economic perspective, I'm willing to assume that you're sincere in your belief that your policy prescriptions are best. What disappoints me is not that your disagree with my economic analysis, or even that you do so without giving it the consideration it deserves, but that you uncharitably--and unjustly--assume that anyone who opposes the welfare state must do so out of an ideologically-inspired lack of charity.

If you want to present the economic arguments for welfare statism or against liberalism, that's fine, but don't just smear those who disagree with you by distorting our motives before you've even addressed our ideas.

Note also that all of the Bible verses you quoted extolled the virtues of charity in general, not coercive wealth redistribution in particular. If you can find any that unambiguously endorse the welfare state, I'd be very interested in hearing about them.