The alleged war on Christmas, and the first real war as waged by Massachusetts Puritans in the 17th century.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/4434/what-war/
What War?
Previous post: Target: Google
Next post: First “Private” Spaceport Tainted by State Involvement
{ 22 comments }
Lew, great column.
As one who openly celebrates the Christ in Christmas I have pondered the “War on Christmas.” It seems to me that if we accept the state then we must also accept that the state will conform itself to be all things to all people. Therefore banning Nativity scenes on courthouse property but allowing Christian floats in the Christmas parade-maintaining a tricky balance.
Christians today would be much better off if they viewed the state as an enemy of all freedoms, including religion. Even if today you win the battle of Christmas versus Holiday, tomorrow the state, which you supposedly influenced will be under someone else’s influence-not your own.
The State is not our battle ground, we should not involve ourselves one bit with matters of the state but remain committed to celebrating Christmas and Christ the way that we should.
No where in the Bible does it say to celebrate Chirtmas-it is all tradition. Keep your own traditions and guard against the attraction of state power.
The Puritans who have given so many good things to us, and who suffered tremendously establishing this country are denigrated by Lew’s selection of “only the bad” — and for what purpose? The entire tirade has nothing to do with the present debate.
Power in the hands of man is evil. Applying that criteria:
There is a thrust headed by organizations (ACLU is one) to remove icons (including crosses) and Christian religious expression from “public” display citing the “establishment of religion” which has magically appeared after 200 plus years of this country, and to do so by force. What Puritans have to do with this is simply … nothing. O’Reilly’s attention grabbing antics have nothing to do with serious debate either.
In San Diego, there’s been a huge fight to remove a cross on mount Soledad public land citing it as “religious” by atheists (joined with the near unlimited funds of the ACLU perpetually suing and unfortunately winning awards), irrespective of it’s memorial significance. One wonders if Catholic buildings now historical monuments will be brought down as well.
The idea that Judeo-Christian symbols must be removed from the public square as they have more “religious” than “historical” significance (and that public prayer, etc. be eliminated from public school from individuals expressing their own beliefs in speaking) is preposterous and unconstitutional. At this point it is the removal or changing of traditional social structure by force which libertarians were supposed to preach against.
Lew unfortunately has been on an Anti-American tear, playing kissy with the left’s anti-war crowd — but why? Surely Saddam abrogated all right to rule as he has virtually no consent at all (similiarly: our government has almost no consent whatsoever to level huge taxes on the population).
A casual perusal of lewrockwell.com indicates near zero criticism of what reasonable people would call reprehensible actions by any other country (really do we want to LOSE in conflicts and is the U.S. government always wrong?) Rothbard had the same lens problem: i.e. the U.S. was the aggressor against the Soviet Union.
Jim,
I think you are pretty unfair with Mr Rockwell. His tear is not anti-Americans but anti-governments, which includes the American government. He does not fight Judeo-Christian civilization but denounces whoever (mis)uses government. It is not because government supports an end you like that government has become acceptable. It is quite sad to see evangelicals “playing god” (as Bastiat would say) as they get closer and closer to government power. Good article!
John — What does Puritan history have to do with this subject?
And wouldn’t libertarians, being corruptible men, misuse government?
Jim,
To the extent that you can call any war waged by a State “just” (due to the fact that they’re stealing taxpayer money to finace the war), the only just wars in American history have been the Revolution and the War for Southern Independence.
All the “good things” people do don’t in any way justify the bad things they do. The tyranny of the Puritans was extreme and fanatical; in fact, in regards to religious fanatacism — indeed, simply evil — it was akin to modern-day fanatical Islam.
Somehow, apparently, according to you, telling to truth isn’t important if it’s something you don’t want to hear, or something critical.
Could Libertarians be corruptible men and misuse government? I guess so. Actually, I am sure yes. That’s why government must be kept small.
Mr. Bradley, did you miss the irony here? The point is that the Puritans waged the first war on Christmas on grounds it is decadent popery. Now their successors have flipped and demanded that government back Christmas–in the the spirit of what is not disallowed is commanded. These folks just can’t come to terms with the idea of liberty.
David — Hence my comment that “our government has almost no consent whatsoever to level huge taxes on the population”.
Telling the whole truth is important. Puritans have nothing to do with this debate and selecting a religious group for target practice is just nonsense (makes me wonder if Puritan history might be inaccurate since they are so universally disliked) — why not the Islamic “War on Christmas” or the Jewish “War on Christmas”?
Then the “War on Christmas” neglected to discuss very many (if any) substantive issue, including the book titled the same by John Gibson. The issue at hand is the forceful ejection of Christianity from “public forums”. Now you can argue many ways: (a) it’s not happening (b) it’s correct, etc. But playing this “Puritans did it first” is just nonsense — and in fact detracts from an important debate.
John — But of course. The belief in libertarianism (and the criticisms leveled against the U.S.) are essentially worthless if they do not address the fundamental problem of the corrupt nature of man and the misuse of power. Libertarian theory “assumes this away” by asserting a universe of non-violent interaction (and ceaselessly bitching that it hasn’t come yet). After this engagement in apriori reasoning fantasy, it criticizes one of the few countries actually established on those principle (principles which we’ve sadly lost). What? Isn’t there some balance?
Sure I wish “everyone to have plenty of ice cream and not get fat” but that is contrary to the contraints of reality. Hence my repulsion at the incessant vehement criticism of the U.S. and GW (not that he doesn’t deserve it) slanted only to the failures of policy with little appreciation of the issues at stake.
Pro-Statists can sit back and relax (if lewrockwell is adequately reflective of the libertarian movement) watching this orgy of wild fantasy (how about a practical system for limiting state power right now — such as an independent currency?).
Some pro-U.S. balance would certainly be appropriate.
John — I might add that a libertarian system would very likely devolve into a centralized state once again, as powerful financial interests agitated for it: just as they did in 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve (among many other examples in U.S. history). The question is not what we want, but how to get there. As such, complaining is useless to the extent it promotes no effective action, it is useful to the extent it “raises awareness” (hate that phrase but it seems particularly appropriate).
Another brief example: The civil war was fought by two equally reprehensible pro-state groups. The North: believing that they could force eternal “consent” and the South: believing they had the right to keep their slavery system intact. It is not at all clear that the South were the good guys.
Jim:
You wrote: “The civil war was fought by … the South: believing they had the right to keep their slavery system intact.”
But tell me, if you can, who wrote the following:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it”
Are you sure the south fought the north over slavery?
Here’s another puzzle worth a google to solve. Who said this, and when did he say it, and what question was he addressing when he said: “Good help is so hard to come by these days.”
History is so much more interesting when it is understood correctly. Even just starting with the facts makes the study much more rewarding.
This is the traditional first ammendment freedom of religion issue except for the Target and Macys part.
If consumers of Target’s and Macy’s products are unhappy with their view of Christmas then those consumers have every right and reason to protest and ask others to do the same just as the sellers are free to advertise and display their goods on their property as they see fit. There is no issue here even if Target has 10billion Christmas advertisements.
Largely the same Northern politicians and generals (and their supporting business interests) that supposedly fought the War of Southern Succession to end slavery in this country, shortly after the War’s conclusion proceeded to commit what can be labeled as genocide against the Plains Indians. Why? The economic policy of the North strongly supported the building of the transcontinental railroad and these Indians and the vast herds of buffalo that supported their lifestyle were an obstacle to the building and efficient operation of the railroads, especially the transcontinental railroad.
As morally reprehensible as slavery is, and make no mistake slavery is morally reprehensible, at least a slave’s life is generally spared, which can not be said of the victims of genocide.
Yes, the slaveholding South should be morally chastized for supporting this institution, but there is little reasonable evidence that ending slavery was the prime issue motivating the North, especially considering the treatment of the Plains Indians. The War of Southern Succession, like virtually all wars, was largely caused by economic factors. The Southern states, which were anti-tariff and against government-subsidized internal improvements, were an obstacle to the implementation of Northern economic aspirations, which included high tariffs, government-subsidized internal improvements, and general government subsidization of favored commercial interests.
After over a century of government indoctrination (thanks in no small part to the outrageous Pledge of Allegiance), the vast majority of Americans believe that the South was morally culpable, while the North held the moral high ground. As Paul Edwards rightly says, however, “History is so much more interesting when it is understood correctly” — as Donald Livingston makes clear:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/16_2/16_2_4.pdf
(Apologies to Jim Bradley for not being sufficiently “pro-U.S.”)
Paul: Lincoln.
David, Paul, Dennis — The point was not why the war was fought, but whether the North or the South had justifiable governance in the “consent of the governed”. Neither did: the North abrogating their legitimacy by violence (war and taxation) against the South, and the South by violence against slaves. There is absolutely no reason to side with the South.
David — As far as the pledge of allegiance, I don’t wish my children to be the serf of any form of a king … so certainly I object more to “alliegance” that than the phrase “under God” for all men are “under God” if God exists, yet it is certainly false that men should be indoctrinated to pledge allegiance to other men who rule them by force contrary to the God-given rights they naturally possess.
Jeffrey — Hardly. I think you will find it a barely discernable minority view (if any at all) that the government must intervene by force to establish Christmas rather than the feeling that public institutions are being told that tradition must be done away with because it is religious. No injection of “the Puritans did dirt 200 years ago” is at all relevant. The lawsuits are to remove expressions of religion, not to establish a state religion.
This country has a religious heritage and it should stand, contrary to the desires of a politically active minority using the illegitimate power of the state and judical activism to violently enforce their views.
Jim,
You wrote: “A casual perusal of lewrockwell.com indicates near zero criticism of what reasonable people would call reprehensible actions by any other country (really do we want to LOSE in conflicts and is the U.S. government always wrong?) Rothbard had the same lens problem: i.e. the U.S. was the aggressor against the Soviet Union.”
Take a guess as to where both Rockwell and Rothbard live(d). Very few Americans legitimately believe that government has been primarily a force for evil rather than good. Those that believe in a welfare / warfare state are the majority. Most people who oppose this war do so for political reasons–give them a slightly different war or a different political figure running it and their allegiance would shift. Why criticize Lew for failing to write about other countries’ problems when the emperor has no clothes?
If there was a gang forcing you to lodge 3 or 4 of their thugs in your basement and guest rooms, how often would find yourself complaining to your wife about a nagging co-worker instead? The US government has the potential to do a lot more harm to us than Iraq ever has or ever will. As far as I can tell, Lew is taking a principled stand for liberty; and doesn’t advocate anti-US writings for their own sake.
Mr. Bradley, you claim:
‘The idea that Judeo-Christian symbols must be removed from the public square as they have more “religious” than “historical” significance (and that public prayer, etc. be eliminated from public school from individuals expressing their own beliefs in speaking) is preposterous and unconstitutional. At this point it is the removal or changing of traditional social structure by force…’
You disingenuous argument falls apart here. These public spaces don’t belong to private citizens. Nor do the schools. In no way that I can see is force being initiated against a private citizen or his property. The main travesty in your examples is the fact that these schools and public institutions exist at all, paid for with stolen goods.
Who cares whether the State promotes or tears down Christian emblems on its own land? Stop patronizing State schools and other institutions if it’s such a big deal to you.
I’m a Christian, and it frustrates me to no end how other Western Christians just want to control the state’s apparatus themselves and use violence the way it’s been used against them. Blind leading the blind, indeed.
Jim,
“The point was not why the war was fought, but whether the North or the South had justifiable governance in the “consent of the governed”. Neither did: the North abrogating their legitimacy by violence (war and taxation) against the South, and the South by violence against slaves. There is absolutely no reason to side with the South.”
Granted, in that no state governs by “the consent of the governed.” As this is the larger point that lies at the heart of true libertarianism — i.e., that all states rule through aggression — I thank you for furthering our cause, however unintentionally.
As for the Confederacy, it is worth pointing out that only 5% of the population owned slaves. It is flat wrong, therefore, to indict “the South” in this regard.
As for the Pledge of Allegiance, the truly offensive part about it is the notion — which flies in the face of our founding principle — that “preserving the Union” ipso facto rendered the nation “indivisible.” (The words “under God,” by the way, weren’t added until 1954, in a Congressional overreaction to the threat of atheistic communism.)
David W — You mean, I make the libertarian point better than Lewrockwell.com — but that was the point.
Paul D — If you are forced into battle is it you that is committing aggression? The idea that the government can “do whatever it wants” with “public goods” (unfortunately including schools) contrary to the will of the local majority is simply nonsense Paul. We have been forced into the public goods system against our will. I’d much prefer to reject government schools and the enormous government taxation (about $10K per year per child in California) and find my own choice. Barring the possibility that I can successfully fund them both, I am forced by circumstance to send my children to public schools.
Now the question is, can schools teach religion? But of course they cannot avoid it. All teachings start with beliefs, and as a result they are all religious. So what is the systematic removal of historical symbology of the U.S. but the establishment of one religion over another? And establishment by a minority, I might add.
The question is further whether any public individual has the right to his own beliefs in the saying of something as simple as a greeting of “Merry Christmas” rather than being forced to say “Happy Holidays” by the state. Talk about Orwellian.
Merry Christmas too all. Religious freedom is no different than any other freedom — if there is a ‘war on Christmas’ whose fighting it? I have my tree up, presents under it, half opened advent calender, lights, the whole thing – and I am not a practicing Christian, I haven’t been to church since I was baptized — no one seems to be waging a war on me. I am celebrating the most wonderful time of the year and no one, not even the US government or the ACLU is stopping me. In fact, in my business newsletter which goes out this week, I wish all a Merry Christmas and half my clients are Jews. Where’s the war.
As for Lew pointing out that the Puritans waged the first war, he’s right. And why shouldn’t they? This is a Pagan holiday, of course most modern religious holidays are piled on top of old Pagan/Seasonal holidays. The birth of Christ is a minor consideration in the Christian faith. The holiday that really deserves observance is Easter, becuase until Christ bled for our sins, died and was reserected, he was just another profit of the ancient world.
There is no war — celebrate Christams — piously, commerciall or don’t. No one is stopping you.
As for the other war discussed here. As a Virginian by choice, I can say that I despise the Confederacy for conscripting an army and establishing an oppresive confederation. Yes, it is true the confederation was less oppressive (unless you were a black slave) than the union, but it was an oppressive state nonetheless. Irrespective of dipising the Confederacy as a state, the South was right in the war they waged against norhtern aggression.
Had we won the War for Southern Independence, we may have ended up right where we are today anyway; however, we could also have had far more state’s rights and decentralizaion. This could have made it easier to dismantle the state apparatus. Moreover, without the enactment (BS if you think they were ratified) of the post war ammendemnts, there would have been no US citizen and therfore, we, as individuals would not be under the iron hand of the Feds. I would rather battle the governor and legislature in Richmond than the bastards in DC (even though DC is 12 minutes from here and Richmod is 2 hours).
Anyway, have a Merry Christmas.
Marwan — The debate is centered on the use of public property. No libertarian here disputes you have every right to non-violent use of your own private property, and violent use of your own property in the cases of defense against violence.
True, and in a perfect world there would be no such thing as public property.
As long as there is: What difference does it make? If we have a National Christmas tree or Menorah or whatever else someone desires. That does not impose a particular religous belief upon anyone. Public use of public property must cater to the current power or to the majority. In this country we are predominantly Christian, therefore, public use for Christmas displays is acceptable no matter how much the minority bithces about it.
If they really find it that offensive then they should ask themselves what is is that bothers them so: The answer is not another’s religion, it is the very fact that public property exists.
Comments on this entry are closed.