The problem with Christmas is not the batteries. The problem isn't even really the stuff. The problem with Christmas is that no one much likes it anymore.
Start thinking outside the cart.
Photo: iStockphoto
If you poll Americans this time of year, far more of them regard the approaching holidays with dread than anticipation. It has long since become too busy, too expensive, too centered around acquiring that which we do not need. In fact, it's the perfect crystallization of the American economy -- the American consumer experience squeezed into a manic week, a week that people find themselves hoping will soon end so that on Jan. 2 they can return to the mere routine hecticity of their lives.
From that central truth, a few propositions follow:
- Replacing regular stuff with green stuff isn't getting very close to the root of the problem. If for some reason you need to give someone a motorized spice rack, then a motorized spice rack with a more efficient motor is quite clearly better. But it's also quite clearly beside the point.
- Stuff itself is a problem less because of its environmental toll (though that is quite high) than because it's increasingly meaningless. Think of your friends. Are many of them lacking in stuff? Or is the first question that forms in their minds when a new gift arrives from under the tree: "Where am I going to put this?"
- But this pleasure gap allows for a concentrated opportunity to begin rethinking our economic life. If stuff isn't valuable anymore, what is? Time, clearly. A gift of time -- a coupon for a back rub, or a trip to the museum, or a dinner prepared someday in the future -- is a gift whose exchange rate is figured in a stronger currency (if you're an economics major, think euros vs. dollars). Or gifts can come embedded with time already spent: a jar of homemade jam, a stack of firewood in the back yard.
- Gifts can also be reconfigured to remove some of the hyperindividualism that marks our consumer society. Ask yourself what you'd rather receive: another thing, or a homemade card saying that, say, a cow had been purchased in your name and was now providing milk for a Tanzanian family that hadn't had milk before. (Note: this line of reasoning is probably especially strong for those of us who are Christians, and recall that the occasion we're celebrating is the birth of a man who said to give all that we had to the poor.)
- Since Christmas has long been in the business of baptizing consumption, it's a good place to start eroding consumption's allure. Newfound pleasures from a simpler holiday -- some silence, some companionship -- suddenly start to seem attractive. Maybe that attraction will remain with us yea even unto February.
The Gift of Nothing
Check out 10 ideas for stuff-free gift alternatives.That would be good, because our environmental problem, at root, isn't that the stuff we're buying uses too much energy or too much plastic, or that its paint has lead in it, or that it's been shipped too far. Our environmental problem is that we consume way too much because we've agreed to try and meet basic human needs -- status, respect, affection -- with material ends. And no time more so than at Christmas, when Santa rides in on a Norelco razor. It's a kind of joint conspiracy that few of us dare break out of, even though we all understand at some level that it's not working. What if you don't give your kids a "proper Christmas"?
But the second you do break out of it -- the second your family becomes one of those that exchanges used books at Christmas, or decides to follow St. Francis' Yule tradition of wandering the park and throwing seed so that the birds too could celebrate, or makes it an annual custom to serve turkey dinner at the homeless shelter -- then you start sharing in the deep human secret that consumer society is set up to obscure: the things that please us most are almost always counterintuitive. We need to be out in the cold air, we need to think about others, we need to serve.
There are, of course, some who will say that a course like the one I'm describing here will damage the economy -- that anyone who proposes a different Yuletide is a "grinch." (This, by the way, is a major literary faux pas. Close reading -- even cursory reading, or even viewing the annual television special, will remind one that it was in fact the grinch himself who believed that Christmas came in a box. He turned out to be wrong, as the Whos of Whoville, those communists, made clear.) You could answer those people by saying, "Well, it won't all happen at once, and the economy will have time to adjust." Or you could answer by saying, "Maybe you're right. And maybe the economy isn't therefore quite as rational and as obvious as we would like to believe, if in fact it depends on a corrupted celebration of Jesus' birth to stagger on for another year."
The second answer appeals to me. We need a kiss to break our enchantment, and a kiss (a coupon for a kiss! Or a dozen!) is a perfectly fine gift to give for Christmas.
Simple people
Ask Umbra on her hotness, corporate gift baskets, and more
Ask Umbra on Halloween treats and costumes
Comments
View as Threaded
Angie Posted 4:57 am
20 Nov 2007
I also have to share with you something my Mom and Dad have done with all of their Grandchildren for years. Instead of Christmas Gifts they started Grandma and Grandpa adventures. They have gone to live theater productions, Christmas programs at various Pioneer Villages, Glow in the dark bowling with a movie, a day at a sports park this is just to name a few. When the number of Grandchildren got larger they just had two events one for the older cousins and one for the younger cousins. Now, for Christmas our whole families are involved in a Grandma and Grandpa adventure as they book a block of rooms at a hotel that has an indoor water activity park etc. and we celebrate an evening meal together and a breakfast the next day. Along with some great memories as funny things always happen either in the pool or just visiting. Everyone's presence is our gift, and family is so precious.
Enjoy the season.
Angie
Permalink
karenpj Posted 9:27 am
20 Nov 2007
Permalink
megrunow Posted 2:46 am
21 Nov 2007
Meghan
Permalink
amc89 Posted 3:48 am
21 Nov 2007
I'm not so fond of the sponsoring-a-cow-for-a family-in-Africa scheme. Supporting a veg-friendly hunger charity like Veg Fam that "fund plant food projects: seeds and tools for vegetable growing, fruit and nut tree planting, irrigation and water wells" makes a lot more sense to me. Check them out at http://www.vegfamcharity.org.uk
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 4:28 am
21 Nov 2007
Permalink
willa Posted 5:36 am
21 Nov 2007
Well, I guess it can't be a merry Christmas for all after all, then...
And as for the purchasing of livestock for the poor: If they're so poor, how will they feed that poor cow? What will they do when she is sick? When she has trouble calving, will there be a veterinarian available, or will she die a slow, agonizing death while they try to save the baby, hoping it will be a heifer so they can subject it to the whole cycle again? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the keeping of livestock--I do it myself--but I do have a whole lot against the keeping of livestock when funds aren't sufficient to provide a basic standard of care.
I'm sorry to be so cynical, but for me this has reinforced the connection between Christianity and myopia, cruelty, and hypocrisy.
Permalink
infp Posted 6:08 am
21 Nov 2007
Permalink
pcarbo Posted 5:27 am
22 Nov 2007
tickets to a movie or hockey game
gift certificate to a fancy vegetarian restaurant
food from the local farmers market
a long distance calling card
a computer game purchased
iTunes or EMusic gift certificate
seeds for a garden
as mentioned above, fair-trade choc'late!
Peter
Permalink
kmp Posted 3:33 am
23 Nov 2007
I quit my 'regular' job back in May. Since then I've been slowly setting up my own business as a consultant, yet this has required financial investment with little money coming in. So, fiscally I have been very conservative of late, and will likely continue to be so for the near future. Environment rejoice! - I am definitely not a rampant consumer.
Many of my friends think this must be a very stressful time for me, because, it is well known that I love Christmas, with a capital L. However, I find that the opposite is true; I have planned early, made many homemade gifts (food, crafts, & spending time top the list) and have the time (and luckily a lifelong habit of recycling wrapping paper & ribbon such that I probably don't have to buy any for a decade) to luxuriously wrap; I have the pleasure of knowing that I am not giving some "shelf-sitter" or "closet-buster" that is more annoyance than gift. I had a friend ask me if it was "freaking me out" to be so poor at Christmastime. I answered, quite truthfully, that I don't feel poor, I feel rich. I am rich in time, I am rich in contentment, I am rich in friends and family. The only thing I am poor in is stress.
While quitting your job may be a bit drastic, I highly recommend stepping off the Crazy Holiday Wheel. You might just discover that you really do love Christmas, after all.
Permalink
Atomic Dog Posted 12:52 pm
23 Nov 2007
Permalink
moremi Posted 3:07 am
25 Nov 2007
Great article, Billy. We need to get out of placing importance on things. If a family member needs things, Christmas is a great time to get them, but every year it becomes harder. Really, what do you get for the man or child who has everything? More of the same? This school year started out with Skipits then Littlest Pet Shop now it's Webkinz - every month something new your child is outcast for not having.
How do we teach children not to be consumerist? It has to start somewhere, and a simpler Christmas sounds like a good place to me. Hello, socks and night clothes as gifts! Good-bye cheaply and exploitatively made toys and junk.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 3:51 am
25 Nov 2007
If that's a joke it's not even funny. That's not environmentalism. It's the act of a self-satisfied prig and a vandal.
Permalink
Will Posted 5:02 am
25 Nov 2007
For starters, it does not appear that you fundamentally understood Bill McKibben's piece. His working thesis is that people do not enjoy the materialism of the holidays-- polls have shown it to be an incredibly frustrating season. This is because the knick-knacks we buy each other do not represent the time and "perfection" you advocate. Modern consumerism has coopted the holiday and the values we hold so dear; you can't buy love or affection. I also take issue with your idea with "braving" the malls. Ask yourself why it is valuable to you that someone endured a grueling, alienating gauntlet of consumerism to exchange their pathetic wage-labour compensation to buy you a crappy new vacuum. Wouldn't it mean a lot more if they had put their time and energy into a homemade gift?
Secondly, I take issue with your representation of the environmental agenda. If you really feel that your activism is so annoying to people, I wonder where it's coming from. My activism is an act of love-- for the planet and for those I am close to. I believe that we need to repair our relationship to the earth and this will improve relations with those around us. Why are you so hostile towards environmentalism-- what are you doing on this website? It sounds like you are an environmentalist out of guilt, not passion. Also, your attitude suggests that you dislike environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike.
Which brings me to my third point-- non-environmentalists are not bad people. If 364 days of the year are spent with you telling non-environmentalists how to live their lives and kicking their shins, you are making a rough name for the rest of us. (This also explains why you seem so hateful towards other environmentalists).
I'm trying my best not to tell you how to live your life, because I believe that a variety of tactics are crucial to any movement. At the same time, I cannot see where you fit into the picture. Maybe you should skip Christmas this year and just meditate or something "hokey" like that.
Permalink
Steaming Pile Posted 4:25 am
26 Nov 2007
Not having little kids helps. That means we no longer have to spend money on cheap plastic crap. Since the price of heating oil has gone up, and the default thermostat setting down in response, we've been seeing a lot more sweaters and hoodies under the tree than anything else. I think overall, we probably spend something like $500 on Christmas, and I suspect that's far below the national average.
Now if we can just get other people to dial their thermostats back to the low 60's (conspicuously green Wal-Mart is a big offender here), I'll be happy.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:17 am
26 Nov 2007
"Look, I can appreciate the environmentalist sentiment - but Christmas is a time to put aside all these hokey political attitudes and indignant, sanctimonious crusades and just enjoy the time with the people you care about."
Hmmm... I thought Christmas was a celebration of the birth of a philosopher who suggested that we might be happier if we stop being so greedy, love our neighbors, turn the other cheek, stop gathering material possessions, et cetera. No wonder I find the holiday so depressing. I just don't understand what it means to be a Christian. Forgot Jesus endorsed wasting money on things we don't need.
[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/132/story_13245.html]
Thanks for clearing it up Atomic D. I'll forget about the man's message for the rest of the year and focus on what the holiday is really about .... burning gas and slipping through the snow while I drive all over town looking for gifts people don't need, spending cash I shouldn't, and taking a few more years off my life trying to ensure no one is dissappointed. Frankly, I'd rather just spend time with my family and play Apples to Apples.
NO MORE STUFF!!!!!!
Permalink
starcrunch Posted 10:01 am
26 Nov 2007
When it comes time to exchange gifts, I might have some handmade token, if I can make something I find suitable. Otherwise, I guess I'll browse etsy or give a donation in their name.
I just finished "Deep Economy" and it really has changed the way I look at things. I've got a more hopeful outlook now.
Permalink
malfunctiongirl Posted 4:00 pm
26 Nov 2007
A few years ago, I began my own tradition of weeping every Christmas Eve, whether I had shopped a sufficient amount or not. My family actually got sort of used to me doing this & now know to give me some time to myself on the 24th.
My reason for crying? I came to the realization that we were trying to buy out of our guilt of not spending enough time with each other. Time is a "stronger currency", the one that matters in the long run.
My fiance's family has, out of financial necessity, begun to switch gears and 'see the light', opting for handmade gifts. Unfortunately, my own family continues on, chasing their immigrant dream of the American Christmas - even if I beg for no gifts.
Permalink
Daughter Posted 9:40 pm
26 Nov 2007
Now as an adult, I realize that they're right. With occasional exceptions (such as wedding or baby showers, when people are trying to set up a household or a new family member), most of us don't really need gifts on special occasions. And if we think about it, what we really want is usually not material - we want love and peace. If you make efforts to give those in a special way to your loved ones, that's hardly selfish.
Permalink
theo Posted 8:17 am
27 Nov 2007
Last Christmas I didn't buy anybody anything. It felt rebellious and liberating. It felt good to resist the consumerist free-for-all. I had to explain to a few people it wasn't for lack of love, just that I hate shopping. This year I intend to do the same, a "Church of Stop Shopping" Christmas, with nothing made by slaves in China! But I will give some handmade gifts.
Christmas should be more like Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving has the right recipe: family, food, hanging out and no gifts.
Permalink
Gaugaukkistonnian Posted 2:19 pm
27 Nov 2007
One of the best gifts that I have given was a little fridge magnet that said Oklahoma! wrapped with till-tape, to a coworker and live theatre friend. The joy wasn't dependent on the expense of it, but on the memories that it brought back.
Christmas is, and always will be, a time of giving. But think about how what you're giving applies to who you are giving it to.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 10:54 pm
27 Nov 2007
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 8:39 am
28 Nov 2007
So, that's my family's Christmas tradition. It might not suit everyone, but it works very well for us.
Permalink
Atomic Dog Posted 3:57 pm
28 Nov 2007
Yes, I also find it unfathomable that children would prefer to do something fun rather than be bored in a room full of adults discussing their jobs or their plans for the future or politics. However, I also find it nothing short of offensive that you think people should visit their families on the holidays.
You know, my horrible, selfish extended family came to my parents house for Thanksgiving. From the east coast to the west coast. The last time they were all together under one roof, it was for a funeral. Still, that doesn't excuse them. Do you have any idea how much fuel they wasted, pollution they created in order to do something as ridiculous as be together for Thanksgiving dinner? It's ridiculous. All they needed to do was pick up the phone. But not me. I passed on a homemade meal, some time with my family who I haven't seen for months, and I spent Thanksgiving alone. And they weren't pleased. It would have been no problem for me to make it up there, but I said, "Shut up mom. Who cares about family when we have THE ENVIRONMENT to be concerned about? I'm an ENVIRONMENTALIST mom, and that means I don't EVER go anywhere unnecessarily - especially not for something as pointless and as wasteful as sharing a stupid meal." I told her not to expect me for Christmas either, and that my family wouldn't be getting gifts, they'd be getting a long diatribe about their unenvironmental faults and their addictions to consumerism. She cried. I told her that she has nobody to blame but George Bush for this and that if she wanted me to ever visit her again, to start voting Democrat.
=
spaceshaper said: "It's the act of a self-satisfied prig and a vandal."
If you're not part of the solution space, you're part of the problem. These consumerist jerks need to be sent a message. And that message is, "We know better than you, and we're going MAKE you do things our way - OR ELSE."
You're no environmentalist. You talk a big game, but you don't take action. If people won't change, we have to change them. By any means necessary.
=
Will said: "Wouldn't it mean a lot more if they had put their time and energy into a homemade gift?"
My ex-girlfriend had her birthday a couple weeks ago. She really, REALLY wanted this new pair of shoes she's been eyeing - but I didn't get it for her. No WAY was I going to spend the time and energy engaging in some mindless consumerism (at the expense of some poor sweatshop labor who probably made them, just so some rich conservative fatcat can turn 1000% profit on it) just to please the people I love and fulfill their dreams and wishes. Instead, I rooted through my recycle bin for some paper that didn't have writing on the back, and I wrote out a poem about saving the rainforests. She said she loved it, but I don't think she really meant it. I think that selfish, evil woman wanted the shoes. I don't think she appreciated my homemade birthday gift, which (bonus!) doubled as an attempt to spread awareness. She broke up with me soon after.
But the heck with her. Any woman that can't appreciate getting something homemade (AND recycled), instead of getting what she really wants, isn't worth being around anyway.
"My activism is an act of love-- for the planet and for those I am close to."
So is mine. I do what I do for the greater good. So that future generations won't have to live in a world ruined by people - including armchair wannabe environmentalists who might recycle a few cans, or buy themselves a hybrid, but won't step up and do what it takes to make a better world. A world in which people aren't ALLOWED to make mistakes that hurt the environment. A world where they're told what to do, and if they don't do it, we retaliate. The only thing worse than an earth-rapist, are lip-service environmentalists.
"I'm trying my best not to tell you how to live your life"
And that's why you'll fail in our noble goal. It's not enough to just lead by example. It's not even enough to tell people how to live their lives. We have to MAKE them live the way WE want them to live. And if they don't... well, then there's consequences. We need to pass the laws that get these people THROWN IN JAIL - but until that happens, we have to act on our own. A few helpful environmental suggestions scrawled into some oversized gas guzzling SUV with a screwdriver is a good way to start.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:53 pm
28 Nov 2007
"And that's why you'll fail in our noble goal. It's not enough to just lead by example. It's not even enough to tell people how to live their lives. We have to MAKE them live the way WE want them to live. And if they don't... well, then there's consequences."
At times I agree with this remark, but not right now. I saw in this thread a number of people who are trying to lead by example and find ways to demonstrate that gift giving can be enjoyable for everyone and not require spending large amounts of money on useless consumer goods. I very much appreciate this. We need lots of suggestions.
I did not see any indication that environmentalists wish to MAKE people refrain from giving gifts. If someone chooses to not hand out expensive gifts to all of their friends and family members, it is their choice. If those apparently expecting gifts are unhappy, well, that is THEIR choice. Those not accepting the rampant consumerism destroying our culture are not under obligation to feed everyone else's addiction. Would Atom D say that someone not willing to purchase a case of vodka for their alcoholic friend is "cheap" and depriving them of the joy of poisoning themselves?
It is very sad that Atomic D associates love with spending money. I think this might point to a more serious problem in our culture, but that is not the issue here. There are plenty of other ways to express love.
Regarding Atomic D hostile remarks -- clearly dripping with sarcasm and actually quite amusing, I must admit -- I would like to point out that he/she was the first to draw their sword by accusing those agreeing with Bill M of being "cheap" and ruining everyone's fun. Why not just let those who wish to reign in their spending and protect the environment do so... why do you want to rain on THEIR parade and make THEM feel guilty about trying to be responsible? You might want to look inside and identify the true source of your anger. It is difficulty to act in ways to protect the environment when we are surrounded by people who don't care... it can be irritating and frustrating.
In world that's going to hell in handbasket, in world where 90% of people act as though there is no threat to the natural environment that supports our civilization, why discourage the few people who are trying really hard to lead by example, trying to raise responsible children who will not equate love with money spent on gifts.
Thank you for presenting a negative role model, Atomic D. I need a reminder of how I must modify my own behavior once in a while. I wish I could take back some of the stuff I write when I see others pushing the same ideas.
PEACE
Permalink
Will Posted 5:20 am
29 Nov 2007
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 9:10 am
29 Nov 2007
In closing, I would like to point out that, while my Sunbird is not a hybrid, she is certainly no gas-guzzling SUV. Not by a long shot!
Permalink
green one Posted 11:21 am
02 Dec 2007
Cheers to a more meaningful, less cluttered Christmas (which includes physical and mental clutter), winning the hearts of environmentalists and everyone else alike. Being fully present is my favorite gift. It can be given anytime, for any occasion :)
Reducing materialism and instead investing in community and "time" should always lead to a happier life. People might see you smiling, notice your peace of mind, and wonder what they can do to be so content... if you can share this with your family and friends, you're imparting a most impacting, important, contagious gift.
Congrats to all who have defied the modern choas of Christmas, but, better yet, have created traditions that are meaningful and sustainable! These are things that influence change.
Permalink
Gretchen Posted 9:39 pm
04 Dec 2007
I'd like to blog about activities and how to say no to them, but I don't have the answer myself.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 11:08 pm
04 Dec 2007
Or maybe there really is no connection between religious belief and the environmental movement and I've got it all wrong. Maybe the people advocating for the planet, for the millions of species (including humans), for the future of life...are actually deeply religious...but somehow I doubt it.
Let's get rid of this holiday and spend the day worshipping the earth, the only place that we know of that life exists. And since we don't know that life exists after death...perhaps we should do a lot more to ensure that this life is as good as it can be for all of us.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:03 am
05 Dec 2007
Good to know former marines continue to look out for us even after they leave the service.
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:15 am
05 Dec 2007
Despite my Episcopalian upbringing, I am not religious at all; yet, I have all the joy in Christmas each year that I had at 5 years old. In fact, I feel hypocritical doing it, but I occasionally go to Christmas Eve mass, as I enjoy the pagentry, the ritual of the Catholic mass, and the nostalgia that it brings of my childhood Christmases.
Christmas, to me, is a time for celebrating the joys of life; good friends, family, food, nature. The gifts and decorations are icing on the cake, but I always try to respect the fact that it is a deeply important religious holiday for some. The celebration of the birth of Christ seems as good a time as any to rejoice in the love of our nearest and dearest, and, to respect those whom we have yet to meet.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 11:20 pm
05 Dec 2007
How can anyone come up with any rational solutions to our many environmental problems when your mind is stuck in the stone-age superstitious "God-fearing" gutter? Problem solving requires educated, rational thought.
I'm sorry...but "nostalgia" is not important enough to make me tow the line for th emonth of December as my Baptist in-laws spout their crap about "God" creating the world, hating homosexuals, hating unwed welfare mothers, hating black people, etc., etc., etc.
I'm going to teach my kids that "Christmas" is the time when we worship trees, which I think would make a whole lot more sense to a kid since the centerpiece is a tree full of decorations.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 12:10 am
06 Dec 2007
Read this article about religious propaganda. The "nostalgia," for the Christmas ceremonies, pageantry, rituals, etc. is all part of the religion propaganda. Once we all get over it, we can really start addressing the big problems. And you all wonder why John Edwards isn't "greener." Can any of you even count how many times he and Hillary invoke "God." They're no better than the republicans. Edwards isn't hard enough on coal...it's probably because he thinks "God" made the coal so it can't be all that bad.
I'm all for taking time off work in the winter to enjoy good food, a family reunion, perhaps an exchange of gifts. But can't we do all these things for their own sake? Why does it have to be to celebrate the birth of Nimrod? I mean...is spending time with your family so low on your list of priorities that you'll only do it when celebrating a myth?
Anyways, Christmas is just part of the advertising campaign of this religious propaganda. Retailers love it too, I'm sure.
Permalink
Super84 Posted 1:35 am
06 Dec 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:31 am
06 Dec 2007
I generally applaud John fM's attacks on religion, especially the place of prestige that it enjoys, often, in US political discourse. And too much God-talk in the mouths of our candidates can indeed be unnerving. A pundit on CNN, commenting a short while ago about Mitt Romney's address on Mormonism, noted that Thomas Jefferson and most of the other Founding Fathers, being Deists, insisted on the strict separation of church and state, and would be appalled by the current importance of religious commitment in today's politics. He asked, rhetorically, "How would one of these Deists run for office today?"
(In passing, some may wonder if it gives an American a more unfair social advantage, to declare, "I believe in God," than to declare, "I was once a Marine.")
On the other hand, John's interpretation of the doctrine of the Incarnation, the assumption of human nature by the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, and the liturgical celebration of that mystery during the Christmas season, is quite ill-formed and unfriendly. Not that it matters: There are plenty of Bible-thumping Christians who have no more intelligent an understanding of what Christmas is all about, really.
Permalink
green one Posted 1:15 pm
06 Dec 2007
Disrespecting peoples' beliefs and culture won't likely get you far in trying to cultivate change (that's usually on environmentalists' agenda); neither will ramming change down peoples' throats. Religion can be twisted for all sorts of means (often political and economic), but demeaning it all together will likely turn many away from listening to anything you have to say. Shouldn't environmentalism foster respect-- for all forms of life, including people? This would entail a language that doesn't alienate and leads to learning new approaches to solve irritations, annoyances, non-eco friendly habits, political hypocrisy, corportate waste, etc.
Christianity and other religions can foster values that promote stewardship; not purely "propaganda" (that often includes meaningful symbolism to religions that foster life).
Don't be haters. It gives environmentalists a bad name and continues cycles of hatred and anger-- of which we have quite enough of in this world.
Foreseeing criticism, taking a respectful approach does not mean being stepped on or not being assertive in actions. Confronting people in a respectful way and being creative about approaches that can help people gain and ecological perspective goes a long way.
The anti- movement and its attitudes are overdone and stagnate potential conversation ---> change. Share your knowledge in a positive way instead of stewing in anger watching your neighbor trash their recyclable goods. Share innovative solutions, read about progress in the movement and be active in your community. Help others gain perspective and continue to broaden your own.
Break out of the dichotomy of "us and them" that holds us hostage and severely limits intelligent solutions. The world will benefit.
Permalink
Will Posted 1:23 pm
06 Dec 2007
Permalink
Will Posted 1:27 pm
06 Dec 2007
Permalink
green one Posted 2:40 pm
06 Dec 2007
Nice reflection on indigenous cultures, militarism, consumerism and gender, Will. Love to see people getting to the roots of the issue, which, as you mentioned begin in our minds (the consciousness shift).
Peace
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:53 pm
06 Dec 2007
First, on the latest comments:
Yes, Will, I join Green One in applauding your "Like, oh my gawd!" post. Being a gay man, I am glad that you identified homophobia and "hypermasculinity" as grave problems in our society, too seldom acknowledged.
(And the Latin expression meaning "it does not follow" is spelled "non sequitur.")
Secondly, on the comments of AMC and Willa from way back on November 21:
Whether it is a case of myopia or not, as Willa suggested, it is indeed odd to praise both feeding birds, in the tradition of Saint Francis, and killing turkeys for poor people, in the tradition of Ebenezer Scrooge, I guess, in one and the same group of recommendations. The questions that Willa is subtly asking are: Why are we so confused about our relationship with animals, that we both love to feed and cherish some, and love to exploit and kill others?; and, Is feeding meat to poor people the best we can do, by way of serving them a good, cheerful meal?
As for contributing to organizations that give animals to poor people in undeveloped and developing countries, I am of two minds. My husband, a farmer's son, thinks highly of Heifer International, and regularly makes gift contributions; and I have done it once or twice. But it seems the animal welfare organizations have serious doubts about that kind of operation, as lovely as they are in principle. So I myself will not have anything more to do with Heifer International. On the other hand, AMC's recommendation of Farm Sanctuary is excellent. I plan to send them something this season.
I also like PCarbo's very different recommendation: Give tickets! Give occasions! Give performances! Give art!
Thirdly, this by Moremi, from November 25, is very interesting:
<<
Really, what do you get for the man or child who has everything? More of the same? This school year started out with Skipits then Littlest Pet Shop now it's Webkinz - every month something new your child is outcast for not having.
How do we teach children not to be consumerist? It has to start somewhere, and a simpler Christmas sounds like a good place to me.
>>
The problem of raising children, in a competitive society in which "coolness" counts for so much, and "coolness" is to a large extent measured by what one has bought, is a very serious subject. It deserves a long discussion in Gristmill.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:38 am
07 Dec 2007
Willa wrote...
"Why waste your time ripping apart peoples' religious beliefs?"
Here is my theory. Feel free to assure me there is no need to worry.
It appears that the religious right (Christian and Muslim) contributed much to the election and re-election of George W. Bush as President of the United States. And these two forces will likely contribute to the election of another "Republican" President, as well as other "Republicans".
Combine disregard for preserving natural resources, an interest in bringing on The Apocalypse (there are Christian and Muslim version of End Time thinking), a disregard for planning for the future (since there apparently is no future), a desire for Holy War, personal greed, corporate greed, and a total lack of real family values... and you have an environmental disaster far worse than global warming, a disaster enthusiastically embraced by folks who are guided by faith alone, a disaster folks are eager to bring on.
It would be great if the religious left or middle could speak louder and draw on their Holy Books for guidance and inspiration and persuade a majority of people on the planet to pursue a better path. But is does not appear to be going so well for them. First, the Holy Books do not overwhelmingly support a better path. Second, the religious left and middle are rejected by the right as lunatics. (Consider Bill O'Reilly's attack on a Liberal Catholic who wish to reduce the amount of commercial activity around Christmas; she was told she does not understand Christianity).
If the religious left and middle cannot counter the religious right's activity, then it is up to non-religious people to reduce its influence. Since we are not religious and really not interested in arguing about the nuances of faith-based dogma and, for example, what the "true" messages from various Holy Books are, it appears that our only approach is to attack the religious right at its source, the mythology it is built on. Sorry about that. If you can come up with a better approach, feel free to elaborate.
Consider the following parallels...
There are responsible SUV owners who use their vehicles for appropriate and environmentally sound reasons.
There are GMOs that will not harm the environment.
There are people who consume meat raised and harvested in an environmentally sound manner.
There are folks living in suburban and rural areas who care for or even restore natural habitat.
Yet, a large number of environmentalists will attack all of these behaviors or technologies as simply too dangerous to be tolerated; it does not matter if there are a few responsible people. Faith-based religion is similar. It is just too dangerous for people to encourage it too continue... if you really care about preserving the Earth's natural environment.
This is my theory.
I did not initiate this conversation. But now that it is underway, this is my two cents. Again, feel free to assure me there is no need to worry.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 4:57 am
07 Dec 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:02 am
08 Dec 2007
And, fortunately, not entirely alone.
Thank you for recognizing the distinction among Christians. It is indeed true, unfortunately, that many on the religious right, those for whom religion means the self-righteousness imposition of authority and control, have contempt for the rest of us, and make it a matter of pride to discount what we say on principle.
And I think it is true (Bill Moyers wrote on the subject in The New York Review of Books, in February, 2005) that many evangelical Christians think the End Times are approaching, and therefore, they think, it would be positively in opposition to God's will to do anything so pointless and futile as to care for the environment.
All Christians, by the way -- and Muslims too, but I know much less about the nuances of their beliefs -- , believe that there will be an "end of time," and a "last judgement." But we envision those things in very different ways, and that is usually OK. Certainly in Christianity it is very traditional to balance the expectation of the End at any minute -- because no one knows when it will come -- with the practical and realistic expectation that this existence, with all the concerns, duties and responsibilities that that entails, will go on for quite some time.
It unfortunately does not follow that environmental issues are always acknowledged as being high moral priorities, even by us liberal Christians. In my experience, progressive Catholic priests who preach beautiful sermons on matters related to social justice still think in a very anthropocentric way, and rarely if ever turn their thoughts to global warming or the biodiversity crisis.
Nevertheless, there are many Christian people, laity, priests, ministers, monks and nuns, who locally do very good work in this area. They and their work ought to be praised and celebrated more widely.
So, on the one hand, no, a Nativity scene or Christmas carols do not directly lead the way to environmental enlightenment. But on the other, for those with a wise and expansive sense of the doctrines of the Creation and the Incarnation, not limited by anthropocentrism, such Christmas themes as "Joy to the World" and "Peace on Earth" would seem too small and shallow if they did not bear a powerful environmental, Earth-loving significance.
Green One understands well enough that an environmentalist strain can readily be found in Christianity, and wrote:
<<
Christianity and other religions can foster values that promote stewardship; not purely "propaganda" (that often includes meaningful symbolism to religions that foster life).
>>
Of course there will always be contrary voices, like that of the perverse Bill O'Reilly (what the hell are you doing watching Fox News anyhow?!), whose ghastly hellish religion instructs him to be as unfair and abusive as he likes, if that is what makes his right-wing viewership laugh and laugh as they wallow in their ignorance.
So in sum, first, I for one will certainly not hold you to subscribing to the idea that "Christianity is good for the environment." I could not subscribe to it myself, without a lot of qualification. And I encourage you to go on criticizing Christianity, so long as you show the kind of nuance that you have done here, earlier in your comment -- but IMHO you lost it toward the end when you condemned all "faith-based religion" as being "dangerous." Certainly the so-called religious right, who the Episcopalian Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, has said are neither religious nor right, are a pernicious influence in American politics and society, and should be strongly challenged whenever they demand that we all listen to them.
Secondly, you are absolutely right to say that the Bible, and other "Holy Books," are of very limited value in improving our conduct. It is a narrow notion, favored by some Protestants, and unfortunately lately by some Catholics who have fallen under evangelical influence, that the Bible is our sole ethical authority, which tells us specifically how to live our lives, and which forbids or discourages us from doing anything that it does not positively command. More correctly and traditionally, the true sense of the Gospel is not limited and constrained by any words of the Bible. And, coercion, imposition, bullying and intolerance have no place in the Gospel.
Finally, gift-giving occasions seem to be common to many cultures, and they seem to be occasions of good cheer, generally. Within Christianity, there is absolutely no reason that Christmas has to be celebrated as a gift-giving occasion. (Just because the Magi brought gifts to the baby Jesus certainly does not require us to give gifts, to children or anyone else.) Now that the tradition of gift-giving at Christmas has taken off -- a relatively recent innovation, by the way -- , we should recognize that it is not in itself a bad thing, but it clearly can be abused. Without being humorless, Romanesque-faced kill-joys, we Christians must do our best to prevent its injustices and excesses.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 10:58 pm
09 Dec 2007
During an election year, I think this discussion is particularly relevant. Last night, all of the leading Repub candidates got together to show who could be the immigrant-hatingest-bible-thumpinest on a debate for Spanish language television. The scary thing about all of this is that if Mike Huckabee may be our next president, and he believes that earth and all of its 10 million species were created in six days by an all-powerful, all-present being.
The people voting for Huckabee are not "good liberal/moderate environmentalist Christians who care about protecting creation"...they're fascists who hate everything from social medicine to brown people to Muslims to atheists to environmentalists.
Maybe our main disagreement here is simply a misunderstanding of each other's definition of the word "Christian."
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 11:08 pm
09 Dec 2007
A. Christ couldn't possibly be the son of a virgin (it takes egg + sperm)
B. If she wasn't a virgin inseminated by a god, then that means he wasn't a god either
C. If he wasn't a god, he didn't rise from the dead
D. Historians don't even know that he existed...
E. The stories that we have of him suggest that he had "some" good ideas but also lots of bad ideas and advocated things that I would consider immoral today
F. If your entire worldview is built up on these myths from the time you're a little kid, how are you ever supposed to face the problems of the world?
G. Isn't celebrating Christmas (as the birth of a god child) the equivalent of celebrating "Earth is Flat Day" or "Earth is the Center of the Universe Day" or "God Hates Philistines Day" or "Darwin Was Wrong Day". I don't see how some people can mix science and religion. Oil and water.
H. Couldn't we have a perfectly good holiday where people get together and exchange gifts, play scrabble, kiss under the mistletoe, and build snowmen...all without any virgin mothers or child gods?
I. Wouldn't a generation who started out life with a science-based understanding of the world be better prepared for dealing with things like overpopulations? (How many religions are advocating condom use...I bet I can count them on one hand).
The list goes on and on...
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:23 am
10 Dec 2007
".... there are many Christian people, laity, priests, ministers, monks and nuns, who locally do very good work in this [preservation of the environment] area. They and their work ought to be praised and celebrated more widely."
Their work ought to be praised and celebrated. But I suspect such people are displaying compassion and concern not because of faith-based religion, but despite faith-based religion. Surely, caniscandida, you and other liberal Christians would still care about your fellow beings if you had never read or heard a single passage from the Bible. You must have a moral compass that helps you sort the bad advice -- such as handing your daughters to a mob so that someone might rape them instead of your guests -- from the good advice.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 1:50 am
10 Dec 2007
Have you seen the polls lately? Huckabee is rising from the dead! If this becomes a faith-based Christian nation under God for flag and country and God for one and for all...kiss the planet goodbye.
I know it's a cute holiday. But Jesus is a myth and he was only nice half of the time anyhow. Nobody believes in gods and virgin births today. Our lives are essentially secular...nobody believes that faith makes internal combustion engines or prescription medications work. We understand the science behind these things. I know there's the tendency to "backslide" into "faith" around the holidays but it doesn't have to be this way. The only reason that Christmas has lasted as long as it has is because it's driven by consumerism. Cute little baby Jesus it filling landfills with plastic snowmen and blinking lawn reindeer.
Anyways...these are just my opinions. I promise I won't exile, excommunicate, or burn any of you at the stake for disagreeing with me.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:14 am
11 Dec 2007
John,
you have said a lot of interesting things about which I would like to say something, but Grist is not the place to do so. Your indignation against Christmas, as built on a myth and a lie, should be encouraged; it is an act of love, after all, to be greatly concerned for the quality of our children's education. Some day perhaps we shall be able to talk about these things more fully. But not here.
WiscIdea,
thanks for your very thoughtful comment.
I strongly agree with your principle: Human beings can discover on their own what is right, and do not at all require the direction of biblical or hierarchical authority. And the ethical example of many supposedly good characters in the Hebrew Scriptures, including God, is very often not at all a good one.
Christianity does not propose a new ethics from scratch. It affirms the just actions and virtues of good people of all traditions. After all, some form of "Love your neighbor as yourself" is present just about everywhere. It is true, though, that there are some peculiar Christian emphases, on such virtues as patience, humility and forgiveness, which are based on the eschatological perspective of New Testament writers.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:52 am
11 Dec 2007
"It is true, though, that there are some peculiar Christian emphases, on such virtues as patience, humility and forgiveness, which are based on the eschatological perspective of New Testament writers."
peculiar: distinctive, unique
Buddhism (origin around 450 BCE) also had much to say about patience, humility, and forgiveness; and it did not appear to emerge out of the dominant religion in the area. Such themes were also covered by Greek and other "pagan" philosophers. They were picked up again -- after a rather dark time in history -- during The Enlightenment by diests, agnostics, and atheists. I know you are aware of all this. My comments are probably more for those observing this thread.
People might find more inspiration and our society might display more compassion and justice if people spent time reading the Buddha's advice (and judging based on experience, not based on faith), the works of Greek and Roman philosphers, and essays written during The Enlightment instead of focusing on a single book, The Bible.
There was and is no need to filter this information through texts which also propagate the violent morality taught by the Old Testament god. Perhaps Christianity would be relatively benign if it could have cut its ties to the Old Testament.
I'm clearly not a Bible scholar; I only present my current view and will read other opinions on the matter.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:50 am
11 Dec 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/us/09zentext.html?_r=1& ...
And there is an accompanying article about this man, his life and his work.
I have great respect for Buddhism, and wish Christianity could evolve into what it essentially is, IMHO, though few or none realize it, a meta-religious philosophy as Buddhism is, not just one of many competing religions.
By "peculiar," I meant more "distinctive," not "unique." But I see that it was not the right word, and I thank you for correcting me.
As I have written on another occasion not long ago in Grist, I have a strong dislike of the Bible, at least in terms of its canonical status among Christians, which makes very little sense to me. Your suggestion, that we ought to read the literature of other religious and philosophical traditions with equally high regard, is excellent, and close to ideas of my own. We ALWAYS must read critically, without prejudice or favoritism.
Permalink
splashy Posted 6:15 am
19 Nov 2008
I have always thought that way. Most of the time the gifts I get are nothing like what I want, and I am sure that I miss the mark on the gifts I give more than I would like
Permalink