House of Eratosthenes

You think that’s a reference to the Lemon Test. No, it isn’t…but it is that particular topic. Things, usually things that are part of a cherished tradition, that some busybody with authority thinks need to go the way of the Dodo bird because they’re not secular enough in nature.

My prongs are not part of any kind of test, they are observations. Observations which, from what I can tell, endure from one “War on Christmas” incident to the next…not a single one of the three ever falter or fail. There may be exceptions, somewhere, but I’m still waiting to find some. I thought of the first two when I was writing about this a short time ago, and thought of a third one as I was commenting at blogger friend Daphne’s place.

Thus far, each of the parts in the unholy trinity is universal:

The misplaced perception of injury. It seems in Anno Domini Twenty Eleven, this strange notion has set in that to deny the existence of a particular class of people is morally equivalent to actively trying to obliterate said class of people. Somehow, the atheist and the Buddhist and the Hindu and the Muslim are supposed to suffer some actual injury when they see a Nativity display on an Air Force base, like a slug writhing in agony beneath a salt shaker. The rules have not been written anywhere or vocalized by anyone — they’re too silly — so I have to figure out what they are by deductive reasoning, which tells me: You may doubt the existence of these alternative systems of belief in private. But if you display something that suggests you don’t know they’re around, that’s when the “rights” have been violated. So we all have this brand-new-manufactured-basic-human-“right” that total strangers should believe in us and our non-Judeo-Christian creeds; or, at least, if any of these total strangers do not believe in us, we have a right not to be reminded of them — our right is to remain ignorant of their ignorance. Oh, and we only have this right as members of groups, not as individuals. So if I chose not to believe in God, you’re infringing on my rights if you refuse to believe I don’t believe in God. Strangely, The Almighty is entirely lacking in exactly this right. Seems almost like a case of discrimination. Why, it is, come to think of it — they can doubt Him, but I’m in heap big trouble if I deny them. Publicly.

The protection of the command decision from the hostility of public opinion. The United States Congress did not vote on a new rule that forbids its members from writing the phrase “Merry Christmas” to constituents; a commission did that. That’s the constant. It’s always a commission, or a three-judge panel, or a board, or the concern of the community. Nobody lowers the boom with one of these crazy hyper-secular rules, and then campaigns for re-election on a platform of “I’m the guy who.” And I find that to be very strange, because the rule is supposed to be put into effect because of the exquisite agony someone is suffering due to the Christmas lights, or hearing people say “God bless you!” when they sneeze, or whatever. Supposedly, the constitutional integrity of our republic is in dire jeopardy before some super-sensible double-talking pipsqueak figures out we can’t have seasonal holly hung from the street signs downtown. If the crisis is that serious, how come these brave public servants who avert it on our behalf, don’t want to bask in our adulation and gratitude? I mean, ever?

The anonymity of the complainant. Together with the skimpy numbers of the complainant…the weakness of the arguments of the complainant…the fictional nature of the complainant! We ordinary people, in the United States anyway, enjoy a constitutional right to face our accuser. Not so with God, Jesus, Santa Claus, Old glory, or any other iconic figure caught in the cross hairs of one of these hyper-secular, busybody, pulled-out-of-someone’s-ass rules. From the anonymous airman who wrote to have the Nativity scene removed from Travis AFB, to the apartment manager lady who demanded an American flag be taken down because someone in the “diverse community” might be offended…we’re never actually introduced to anybody who’s born the brunt of this abuse of having to lay eyes upon such an icon. A goodly measure of the time, the strutting martinet in question will actually go on record and admit there is no such complainant, the offensive display is being removed as a precaution, for the benefit of the theoretically offended. Now give this one a good think…when is the last time you wrote a letter to City Hall, or your boss, or your apartment manager, or anybody else in charge — from just you! — letting them know something made you uncomfortable, or you wanted something changed, and got that kind of satisfaction? I don’t know about you, but I don’t have an experience like that to share, nor do I know anybody who has. Like, wow! These must be some great letter writers!

Let’s just quit beating around the bush. This has nothing to do with religion at all. The American Flag doesn’t represent a religion. Christmas tinsel is not religious. Nobody’s lying awake at night, chewing their fingernails in apprehension that some portion of their tax dollars are being spent on displays that are associated with a popular view of Creation that they don’t share.

This is an attack on tradition. It is a coordinated attack, one that is insulated from the ballot box, out of concern that it could not survive a chance brush with it. If those who are sympathetic to this attack, felt that they could still engage in it after they were told “Wait for a real live person to be offended, then give us a call, we’ll have a town meeting about it” — they’d be doing exactly that.

But they cannot press their attack on those terms. Because it would be like nose-picking with a wet noodle, and they know it. And then the voters would be able to tell them what they thought of that excessive waste of time…and they know that, too.

It is a coordinated attack, one that is insulated from the ballot box, out of concern that it could not survive a chance brush with it.

This is a key point you’ve hit on here, and I suspect it would be the case even in a whackadoodle place like San Francisco?

Why do I say that?

Geesh, have you ever taken a walk down the Embarcadero this time of year? Go on, take a look, then come back and report what you see there, running vertically up the corners of buildings.
- cylarz | 12/23/2011 @ 01:37
It is a coordinated attack, one that is insulated from the ballot box, out of concern that it could not survive a chance brush with it.

A.K.A. “every liberal initiative ever.”

Astonishingly enough, it turns out that the majority of Americans don’t like liberalism, and will vote it down every chance they get.* I mean, let’s face it — if you can’t get gay marriage passed in whackadoodle California, it ain’t passing by popular referendum.

Which is, of course, not the right answer, so Our Betters simply bypass that troublesome “will of the people” stuff and go straight to the courts. [Though this is, to be fair, more efficient than the EU solution, which is to force recalcitrant polities to re-vote and re-vote and re-vote until they arrive at the approved decision]. No muss, no fuss, no debate, no vote…. and suddenly “not being a liberal in public” is a crime.
.
.
.
*which, sadly, is not to say that the public doesn’t like liberals. If we actually voted on ideas that make sense, conservatives would win elections in a landslide pretty much everywhere. But we vote on personalities, and for some reason I just can’t fathom, Americans these days seem to like hectoring shrewish busybodies.

[My best guess is that it goes back to high school — somebody has to sell band candy and put together the yearbook and all that other nerdlinger crap, and we sigh with relief when those walking-toothache kids step up. If politics is basically one giant, years-long student council meeting (and it is), we turn it over to the headgear-and-pocket-protector types out of sheer force of habit]
- Severian | 12/23/2011 @ 04:23

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Three ProngsThursday, December 22nd, 2011

Three Prongs
Thursday, December 22nd, 2011