Unless you have been on another planet for several decades, you have heard the phrase “War on Christmas” tossed about in the mainstream press and Fox News, too (cue: rim shot and cymbal).
Well, imagine the outcry if the beleaguered White House cultural staff had carried through on the following idea for President Barack Obama’s first Winter Solstice in the people’s house. Please consider this an elaboration on that Pew Forum report (.pdf) that Sarah mentioned earlier today.
So, once again, let’s head over to The New York Times and check out the Style piece on White House social secretary Desiree Rogers. The headline proclaims, “The Spotlight’s Bright Glare.” Imagine if the Times had led with the following section of the piece, instead of letting this detail slide down in the body of the article:
… Washington is a city that likes its traditions, and Ms. Rogers has raised a few eyebrows by trying to bend them. When former social secretaries gave a luncheon to welcome Ms. Rogers earlier this year, one participant said, she surprised them by suggesting the Obamas were planning a “non-religious Christmas” — hardly a surprising idea for an administration making a special effort to reach out to other faiths.
The lunch conversation inevitably turned to whether the White House would display its creche, customarily placed in a prominent spot in the East Room. Ms. Rogers, this participant said, replied that the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display — a remark that drew an audible gasp from the tight-knit social secretary sisterhood. (A White House official confirmed that there had been
internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the creche.)
Now, is it a hard news story that the White House even considered not displaying the creche? I think, frankly, that this would depend on the publication and the editor. Then again, that “audible gasp” in a Washington gathering was certainly a clue that the White House staff was skating on thin public-relations ice, in terms of headlines, soundbites and even Saturday Night Live.
Why? The left wing of American politics is an interesting place these days, with growing numbers of true secularists marching next to the whole “spiritual, but not religious” crowd. And then you have Obama, who is a true believer when it comes to the progressive, postmodern, multicultural, oldline liberal Protestantism that is another key factor in American religion and politics.
As the Pew study reveals, this president has made a dent in the popular image that the Democratic Party is just a tad hostile when it comes to traditional religions, and Christianity in particular. Obama gets that. But do the people around him? How does he lead a marching band that includes people who, well, don’t want to display the White House Christmas creche while also reaching out to a nation that includes millions of traditional believers, as well as millions more who are at least vaguely, emotionally attached to Christian themes and symbols?
That’s an interesting story, one that is much more important — for conservative and mainstream Democrats — than the so-called Christmas wars.
Let me give another hat tip here to my friend Eric Metaxas, who, as a former editor of The Record at Yale University, knows a few things about satire, politics and culture. He is also the author of “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About God (but were afraid to ask)” and a bunch of other books. In his commentary at the Fox News website, Metaxas noted:
If President Obama wanted to fuel the fears of every serious Christian in America and actually prove that he is every bad thing they’ve ever heard about him on every crazy Web site, the idea of symbolically taking Jesus out of the White House at Christmas would be just the ticket! Let’s face it: “Brand Obama” dodged a bullet by not going forward with this terrible idea, but only barely dodged it. After all, the facts of the story are right there in The New York Times for all to see.
Amen. A highly symbolic close call, for Obama and other Democrats who want to stay in touch with ordinary American who frequent mainstream church pews.
PHOTO: The White House creche, care of Flickr’s Creative Commons.
 | Posted at 1:04 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (11) |
December 8, 2009, at 2:10 pm
Seems like the inept social secretary dodged a slightly more important bullet — since her failure to properly vet visitors could have led to an attempt on the life of the president.
Maybe that’s why the creche story (which didn’t actually lead to anything, after all) got a less prominent spot in the story.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 8, 2009, at 2:42 pm
Spiking away.
Come on folks. No pot shots at Obama or others. Stick to the journalism issue in this post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 8, 2009, at 3:03 pm
I’ve always wondered at the journalistic “given” that someone of another faith tradition (or no faith tradition) is offended by the celebration of Christmas. It would be interesting to know (and not anecdotally) who is offended, what they are offended by, and an estimation of their numbers. Are they are non-Christians of other faiths who are offended by the religious images associated with Christmas? Other combinations are possible—say—1) secular persons who are offended by Christian religious images; 2) non-Christian religious persons who are offended by over-the-top secular Christmas images, but have no real problem with religious images; 3) secular persons who are offended by both religious and secular images, etc, etc.
The answers to such questions might be surprising!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 8, 2009, at 3:41 pm
Interesting quote in the NY Times article about making Christmas “more inclusive”. I wish the author would have asked what that means? More inclusive to …. non-Christians?? Isn’t that a line that is just begging for further explanation?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 8, 2009, at 4:52 pm
I’m not sure why you spiked me. I did not take a potshot at Obama (or anyone else for that matter), and frankly, I would rather that he or any other president remove a chreche from the White House than cynically maintain one in order “to stay in touch with ordinary Americans who frequent mainstream church pews.” Are you suggesting he do such a thing?
I was commenting on a term you employed in your story which ought to qualify as a journalism comment. I don’t believe ‘true secularists’ holds up to any serious analysis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 8, 2009, at 5:25 pm
Very interesting. I’m tweeting this!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 8, 2009, at 8:14 pm
I agree with PS. For Democrats, is inclusiveness achieved at the exclusion Christianity? Or are all faiths to be excluded in the name of inclusiveness?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 9, 2009, at 9:46 am
The Constitution guarantees us freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion and implies, at least to me, a respect for the faiths and traditions of others.
I am a Jew, fairly observant, and have always enjoyed the beauty, both physical and spiritual, of the Christmas season. It allows me to know my Christian neighbors better and does not ‘offend’ me. Hopefully, others will grant the same acceptance and respect of my religious faith and practices, as well as that of others.
Most religions are based on the spirit of what we know as the Golden Rule, a sentiment acceptable to all people, and encourage respect for others, even if they do not share your religious beliefs, or adhere to no religion at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 9, 2009, at 11:05 am
Completely agree with dprosenthal. Respect for all needs to be inclusive.
Why would I be angry with someone for displaying a menorah? It doesn’t infringe on my rights and it’s a beautiful expression of what that person holds dear to them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 9, 2009, at 1:47 pm
I agree with dprosenthal and Kent Harker. I suspect most people who are religious are not particularly offended by displays of associated religious symbols at the time holidays of other faiths are celebrated. However, I think many people of faith would object to the secularization of their religious holidays by the government—almost as if the government is intent on defining the “acceptable” symbols of the holiday, even if those that are suppressed may be the most meaningful to the faith practitioner. The attempt to shoehorn Christian and non-Christian religious celebrations that occur late in the year into a secular “one-size fits all” mega-holiday shopping extravaganza could be seen as fairly disrespectful all around. Maybe the government should just give this holiday another name…say…”Retail Salesday”, and Congress could make it a national holiday celebrated on the last Monday in December.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 13, 2009, at 4:22 pm
Isn’t “non-religious Christmas” what we are stuck with already? Men in red suits, all-covering evergreens and department store sales do not figure in my religion. People treat “Xmas” as though it was Santa Claus Day, or World Peace Day, or International Children’s Day.
(… heading off to recite “Christ Climbed Down…”. Again.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0