Live Q&As

slow down, if for no other reason than because it's never useful to simply explain away other people's concerns, even if we don't share them.  you are certainly wise to put quote marks around the words "true believers" when connected those who are angry and fearful, because true belief should, i would think, make one less angry and afraid. 

on the other hand, Christmas is not what it once was in this country -- the presumed holiday of all Americans in a country that was presumed to be Christian even though we knew it wasn't all Christian.  whether the change is positive or not -- and i think it is -- there is still a loss for many people in that change, and simply telling them to "get over it" is both unkind and unwise as it creates the backlash we are witnessing today.

As to Chritmas "winning" because more dollars are spent in connection with the holiday, not sure what kind of victory that is, especially for those who feel disapproved of when they say "Merry Christmas" at the checkout counter.

As a Christian, you seem to understand only those who share your understanding of Christmas.  Doesn't that make you very much like those you say you don't understand? 

and if we are playing the "historical roots" game in order to devalue other people's understanding of faith, how would you feel if i devalued your Christianity as a co-opted, not to mention poorly understood, version of first century Judaism? All tradtions, including yours and mine, have their roots in something else.  the issue isn't the roots, it's what fruit the tree bears.

you are 100% right about the importance of fighting for the right to celebrate one's faith, or faithlessness, and stop fighting about the importance of others celebrting theirs less.

really, you didn't get hanukkah presents?  how sad!  you are certainly right that the overtly theological story of christmas is quite beautiful whether one believes in jesus or not.  the willingness to see the beauty and the promise in a little baby, to believe that good things come in tiny packages, and that redemption is possible -- that is great stuff.  in fact, many of those are themes central to hanukkah.  think little cruse of oil bring longer than seemingly possible and it's signal of redemption.

we all need a little light at the darkest time of the year, and that can also include the physical gifts we buy.  so i would celebrate "both" parts of whatever holiday you hold sacred.

agreed -- christmas is not in danger. 

your last observation is so critical!  instead of fighting about whther there is or is not a war on christmas, let's just discuss the facts.  where are children's, or any one else's relgious beliefs being stiffled?  what does mr. perry mean when he declares that the president is at war with religion?  i really want to know!

i am actually sensitive to the tone-deafness which many liberals seem to have when it comes to faith -- think back to democratic presidential debates and candidates poor performance when asked what sacred texts and tradtions inspired them.  but if the response to that tone-deafness is insisting that all people must listen to the same music or risk being called bad people and terrible americans, that's a whole lot worse.  the tone-deafness is a shame and it DOES hurt us, but the other response by perry, can actually get people killed -- at least that is the history of such understandings of faith in the public square.

it may be a sign of the times, but i don't know about either a sign of the end or about attacks on god.  it seems to me that we have one group that attacks people in the name of god, and another group that attacks god in the name of people.  i think most of us know that neither is healthy.

ins't it about time for pre-modern believers and modernist secualrists to stop trying to create the 21st century by having a fight between the 15 century and the 19th century.  enough!  that debate demands that for one side to win, the other must go away.  how about figuring out how to make room for each other?

nothing to add here but "thank you"!

i'm with you -- i miss the little drummer boy!  i think that one probably went away because it was a clay-mation show and most kids would not watch that today.  of course, the just begs the question.  it should be re-made and aired.

you are correct that the first attempts at greater cultural sensitivity were to silence certain expressions of overtly christian popular culture.  that was a terrible, if somewhat undertandable move.

we need to see inclusion as a process of making space for others, not flattening distinctions between different traditions.  when both sides have more voices that are doing that, the christmas wars will become a christmas peace -- not to mention that little drummer boy will be back!

you are totally right!  i have no idea what a holiday tree is.  what holiday?  this is, as you say, time when politcal (or spiritual) correctness become pure silliness.  it may be in the name of sensitivity to others, but it ends up silencing all -- hardly what makes this nation great.

i'm with you about the fuzziness of what it means to go "too far".  that doesn't mean that there should be no limits, but it does mean that we should be VERY careful, especially because where the limits are for most of us, tend to fall out exactly where our own personal comfort zones are.  in other words, it's not that things have gone too far, it's that they have gone too far for whoever is making the claim!

Shalom and thanks to you!  i could not agree more, and i would not stop with christmas and chanukha.

We need all of the classic stories that guide our lives to be told.  we need to challenge ourselves as tellers to tell them in ways that can be understood and appreciated by those who do not share our beliefs, and we need to challenge ourselves to learn from the stories of others even though we will never join their tradtion.

Perry's ad is no joke.  that means however that we need to take it seriously in all of it's manifestations -- both the potential dangers of using language of war, and also of the genuine feelings of those who use it.  they DO feel under attack, and while it is always easier to dismiss people, especially when they have fewer facts on their side, doping so doesn't work.

first, ultimately there is no other side because we are all in this together -- as americans, as humans, etc.  second, in times of fast-paced and often radical change, even if positve, people get banged up.  it can never be wrong to treat with compassion, those who feel banged up.

comapssion does not mean accepting that all understanding of reality are equal.  it means going the extra mile with people when they are not.

so for you, it would not be devaluing at all -- it would affirming your decisions re the church.  thank you for both your honesty and your reminder that we all like being affirmed, regardless of the beleifs we hold.

do you feel better now?  i don't mean to be snarky, but how does treating those with whom you disagree with exactly teh same disrespect they show you, help?  in fact, it adds fuel to the fire.

the irony is that you and i probably share many views when it comes to policy.  of course, if all we want to do is talk to each other, and those who already agree with us, we can keep up your approach.  if however, we hope to be taken seriously by any of those who disagree, we need to engage them where they are, not where we are.  doing any less means that we are not better when it comes to all that peace on earth and good will "stuff".

i know, but we are right.  sometimes though, we all have to choose between luxuriating in our correctness, and actually being kind and effective. 

they are NOT replacements for each other, and i suspect, that far more than using such terms, it is the claim that they are, which causes much of the hurt and anger that is out there.

the issue should not be, which is the correct thing to say, it should be, how and why do people choose which to say when.  sometimes we will get it right, and sometimes not, but there must be room for both.

let's start with the easy one:  what evidence you or anyone else have for hannukah being "brushed aside" in comtemporary culture?  if anything, it gets a far greater amount of coverage than is proportional to the number of people celebrating it.  perhaps that is one reason i am so sensitive to those who feel that christmas, as they would like it observed, sometimes gets s"shorted".

as to the issue of what a christmas tree "really is", i will do this once more:  are you kidding me?  are you really nothing more than a collection of cells such that i can do what i want with you because when seen at that level you are not a human?

we can always shift the focus of our lense to allow us to make more of things than they are, or less of them than they are.  typcially, we all make more of the things we like and less of those we don't.  perhaps, at least at this time of year we should do the opposite.