"An Atheist Chooses Jesus Over Santa"

[studiodekadent]

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith...se_jesus_o.html

An Atheist Chooses Jesus Over Santa

By Andre Comte-Sponville

I hate Christmas, New Year’s, and holidays in general. What could be sadder than the obligation to be happy on an assigned date? What could be a greater lie? This accumulation of garlands and cheap decorations, the displays of lights in windows, the crass promotion of it all. The perpetual appeal to consume, to binge, to be a part of the bustling crowds in stores. The overflowing of optimism and good feelings on our television screens, along with the sudden increase of pollution, injustice and stupidity, I can’t wait for it all to be over. Bring on the new year, bring on the real world, its struggles, its efforts, and the ordinariness of each day, which always begins again!

It is easy to blame children for some of this. Christmas is their holiday, you say. But that’s just an excuse. Christmas is not the holiday of children. It’s the holiday of retailers, of familial selfishness, of greed, of the child consumer and the childish consumer. It basically represents the opposite of what we need to teach our children.

Just look at Santa Claus, bearded and pot-bellied, entertaining the passersby on the sidewalk. The man who dresses as Santa gets paid to do it. I can excuse him for this – one has to earn a living – but I cannot excuse his employer. In fact, I’m surprised that our churches don’t criticize this. The belief in Santa Claus is worse than heresy, which at least has good faith in itself. Santa is just a superstition for children, a lie for adults, and a generally stupid concept. When my three sons were little, I didn’t have the courage to resist the pressure from society. I pretended, like everyone else. Am I wrong? I don’t know. But what a relief when the truth was revealed; when the boys, very early on, indicated that they didn’t believe in this nonsense!

And what is the opposite of Santa Claus? A child rather than an old man. Poor rather than rich. Hidden rather than exposed. He who has nothing to sell, nothing to give, nothing more than his life and his love. The opposite of Santa Claus is Jesus Christ: the naked infant between the bull and the donkey, the innocent victim between two thieves, the crib and Calvary. These two images, in their extremes, are the most famous of the beautiful nativity story. They demonstrate the essence of this God, who is the weakest of all gods, the most human, and for all that, the most earthshaking.

I don’t believe that Jesus is God or the son of God. He is the Son of man, as they say, begotten and not created, and ultimately born of a woman, just as we all were. It’s in this sense that he is truly our brother. I like that he had a family, that he was loved from the beginning, and because of that, he learned to love. This is the spirit of the Son: the will to be loved precedes the will to love, and renders it possible. In this way the Son is more human than the Father, though fathers are only human because they were first sons.

What does Jesus symbolize? The primacy of love, even when weak, defeated, humbled, and tortured. Easter marks his victory, his omnipotence, his divinity. Christmas marks his weakness, his fragility, his humanity. This is why Christmas has more significance to me. It’s not the victory that I like, it’s the love. Not the power, but the justice. Not divinity, but humanity.

This is why I am an atheist, while remaining faithful – as best as I can – to the spirit of Christ, who represents justice and charity. That is the true spirit of Christmas – the basic opposite of which is the spirit of Santa Claus (if he has a spirit at all), and beyond that it is the spirit of his zealous fans, big and small, who embody selfishness and consumption.

MY RANT/REBUTTAL TO THE ABOVE BILGE

by Andrew Russell

Andre Comte-Sponville has certainly demonstrated loyalty to the first half of his surname in this article. Indeed, I find this article to be a wonderfully accurate distillation of the spirit of (Christian) Christmas. This explains why I always applauded King Herod and wished the little bastard (Jesus) was axed the minute he crawled out of Mary's immaculate uterus. Considering Comte-Sponville's atheism, his article embodies Christian morality much more consistently than many Christians.

Comte-Sponville sounds like Auguste Comte. His equation of "consumption" and "consumers" with "immoral" is textbook socialism, and his reduction of Christmas to economic forces (it being a "retailers holiday") is textbook Marxism. Combined with condemnations of "greed" and "selfishness" that would make Auguste proud, it comes as no surprised that he once wrote a book entitled "Is Capitalism Moral?" (2004), no surprises for guessing what his answer to that retorical question is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Comte-Sponville).

Comte-Sponville shows that Socialists, who once proclaimed how Socialism will deliver all the material goods our heart desires, have been forced (in the face of overwhelming evidence that Socialism will not and can not deliver the material goods our hearts desire) to condemn Capitalism for delivering said material goods. In the end, it is apparent their objection to Capitalism has nothing to do with the consequences of Capitalism (and Socialism), but rather their hatred of self-interest (which they call "greed" and "familial selfishness" (so now it is immoral to care for your family over others? Gee, Rand was prophetic now wasn't she!)).

So now we know what Comte-Sponville hates (self-interest, love of those special to oneself over those that aren't (the Transgression of Preference!), the desire to make oneself happy, etc). So now we may ask what does he like? Comte-Sponville's words betray his monstrous excuse for a code of values, again all derived from Auguste. Comte-Sponville obviously considers Christ the image of the moral man, the man as man should be. To Comte-Sponville, Christ is poor, has nothing to sell (after all, that would be capitalistic!), nothing of worth to give to others apart from his life and his love, is more or less a weak, submissive, pathetic whipping boy doomed to be flogged, crowned with thorns, nailed and slowly, slowly suffocated for six hours. The weakest as the greatest, the most lowly lifted to the level of pure exhultation, and in this "he is truly our brother."

If Comte-Sponville claims to love humanity, he is pathetically deluded. His image of mankind is of the perpetual beggar, the brutalized and tormented innocent, "the defeated, the humbled, the tortured," Comte showing nothing but admiration for "his weakness, his fragility, his humanity." The implication being that the triumphant, the proud, the joyous, the truly alive, is not truly human. Comte-Sponville is an avatar of misanthropy.

Comte-Sponville is correct that the "spirit of Christ" is the opposite of the "selfishness and consumption" embodied by secularized Christmas. Comte-Sponville, however, allies himself with the wrong set of values. Comte-Sponville values sufferring, pain, deprivation, grovelling, and being victimized, wheras selfishness and consumption are premised on valuing life, joy, pleasure, happiness, satisfaction and pride. Since I do not share Comte-Sponville's masochistic death fetish, I ally myself with the values of life.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This explains why I always applauded King Herod and wished the little bastard (Jesus) was axed the minute he crawled out of Mary's immaculate uterus.

Andrew,

I agree with protesting the consumer is immoral thing and glorifying of the helpless over the prosperous. This is typical sentimental/altruist crap.

But I don't get the quote above. Who on earth would want to ax a newborn baby? King Herod's policy was the epitome of lunacy and immorality combined. You applaud that?

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

The part of Andrew's post applauded King Herod is what gives Objectivists and atheists a deserved bad name.

It is worth commenting that Santa is a figure of Christ. The legend is that he was a bishop in the early church. One thing that shows that is the candy cane which looks like a bishop's mitre.

It is worth noting that the Puritans did not celebrate Christmas believing it to a papist affection.

[Dragonfly]

Santa Claus is the degenerated version of St. Nicolaas, who is a much more interesting figure, at least in Dutch folklore. He is a dignified bishop who is not only giving presents but who can also admonish children for their bad behavior. Well, at least that was the case when I was young; I'm afraid that the stern part has been watered down in the course of time. But Santa Claus is the Michael Moore version of St. Nicolaas, a fat giggling idiot whose vocabulary is limited to a silly "ho ho ho", which I don't find very inspiring.

BTW, that tale about Herodes killing the children is of course a myth concocted by the evangelist Matthew.

[studiodekadent]

This explains why I always applauded King Herod and wished the little bastard (Jesus) was axed the minute he crawled out of Mary's immaculate uterus.

But I don't get the quote above. Who on earth would want to ax a newborn baby? King Herod's policy was the epitome of lunacy and immorality combined. You applaud that?

Michael,

I was using hyperbole for shock value and humor (admittedly somewhat dark humor). I certainly agree that infanticide is immoral. But again, it was dark humor.

No, I would not support baby-killing, even if it killed off a philosopher whose ideas have caused monstrous damage. The reason I wouldn't literally kill the infant Jesus is because he cannot be held responsible for the Crusades, inquisitions, etc (just like Kant cannot be held responsible for World War 2, the Holocaust, etc.).

To be honest, Im surprised no one saw that I was making a sick joke.

[Brant Gaede]

This explains why I always applauded King Herod and wished the little bastard (Jesus) was axed the minute he crawled out of Mary's immaculate uterus.

But I don't get the quote above. Who on earth would want to ax a newborn baby? King Herod's policy was the epitome of lunacy and immorality combined. You applaud that?

Michael,

I was using hyperbole for shock value and humor (admittedly somewhat dark humor). I certainly agree that infanticide is immoral. But again, it was dark humor.

No, I would not support baby-killing, even if it killed off a philosopher whose ideas have caused monstrous damage. The reason I wouldn't literally kill the infant Jesus is because he cannot be held responsible for the Crusades, inquisitions, etc (just like Kant cannot be held responsible for World War 2, the Holocaust, etc.).

To be honest, Im surprised no one saw that I was making a sick joke.

Killing Jesus is like killing Kenny. If not one Jesus Saul would have found another. The genius of Jesus is he buffers you from God.

--Brant

Edited December 26, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[RTB]

Christmas is a fabulous celebration. For me, it isn't a religious celebration although I enjoy the mythologies of Jesus and angels and so on. It should be, as it is in many of our families, a celebration of family and prosperity.

....and the pretty lights. damn. (lighten up you people........so to speak)

[BaalChatzaf]

Killing Jesus is like killing Kenny. If not one Jesus Saul would have found another. The genius of Jesus is he buffers you from God.

--Brant

You are on point, as usual. Christianity, especially as practice by Protestant fundamentalists is really Paulianity Most of the N.T. is written by Paul (or at least attributed to him) although he never met Yossi (Jesus) face to face. If Yossi were alive today he would be a Reform Jew, which is the sane answer to the ultra pharisaic types. Yossi was not trying to buffer anyone from G-D by the way. He was trying to buffer folks from the ultra-religious fanatics. The fundamentalists have turned out to be the very Pharisees that they say Jesus despised.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Renee Katz]

Ugh, that article made me want to vomit. A perfect example of what's wrong with so many atheists: They so insist on doubt and skepticism and being open-minded and yet they wouldn't even think for a second to religious morality, i.e., altruism.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Renee Katz

[studiodekadent]

Ugh, that article made me want to vomit. A perfect example of what's wrong with so many atheists: They so insist on doubt and skepticism and being open-minded and yet they wouldn't even think for a second to religious morality, i.e., altruism.

Ms Katz,

I agree. Many atheists take religious morality as axiomatic, and simply try to justify it a different way. Of course, many of them do not grasp the true demands of religious morality (i.e. they simply think it means "be nice and considerate to others" or something of this "benign benevolence" variety). After all, look at Dawkins trying to justify his "altruistic selection" hypothesis. Look at any economist analyzing "altruism" (they analyze benevolence towards others, which is not in itself altruistic). The vast majority of people do not understand altruism's demands, since in today's culture it has become a synonym for "being nice to other people."

This, however, cannot be said for Comte-Sponville. He obviously understands what altruism means (I wonder if he is actually related to Auguste Comte). This naturally makes my estimation of Comte-Sponville much, much lower.

[Etisoppa]

This explains why I always applauded King Herod and wished the little bastard (Jesus) was axed the minute he crawled out of Mary's immaculate uterus.

But I don't get the quote above. Who on earth would want to ax a newborn baby? King Herod's policy was the epitome of lunacy and immorality combined. You applaud that?

Michael,

I was using hyperbole for shock value and humor (admittedly somewhat dark humor). I certainly agree that infanticide is immoral. But again, it was dark humor.

No, I would not support baby-killing, even if it killed off a philosopher whose ideas have caused monstrous damage. The reason I wouldn't literally kill the infant Jesus is because he cannot be held responsible for the Crusades, inquisitions, etc (just like Kant cannot be held responsible for World War 2, the Holocaust, etc.).

To be honest, Im surprised no one saw that I was making a sick joke.

Number one it is a false dichotomy

As an atheist or non-Christian you can choose BOTH Jesus and Santa.

We can choose Jesus for the superb example of civilized humanity he taught and lived.

And this was no accident. If you examine the little we know of his early life, you can see where this came from .

I just wish more modern Christian would REALLY follow his example. Especially those in "leadership" positions in our societies. The are creating a Jesus in their own mind that is nothing more that a Stalinist dictator, who has issued them orders for a global, and soon to be wholesale, violation of individual rights and the humanity of the individual.

I just wish they would REALLY follow his example and leadership, and not those who claim or want to substitute for Him.

[Etisoppa]

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith...se_jesus_o.html

An Atheist Chooses Jesus Over Santa

By Andre Comte-Sponville

I hate Christmas, New Year’s, and holidays in general. What could be sadder than the obligation to be happy on an assigned date? What could be a greater lie? This accumulation of garlands and cheap decorations, the displays of lights in windows, the crass promotion of it all. The perpetual appeal to consume, to binge, to be a part of the bustling crowds in stores. The overflowing of optimism and good feelings on our television screens, along with the sudden increase of pollution, injustice and stupidity, I can’t wait for it all to be over. Bring on the new year, bring on the real world, its struggles, its efforts, and the ordinariness of each day, which always begins again!

It is easy to blame children for some of this. Christmas is their holiday, you say. But that’s just an excuse. Christmas is not the holiday of children. It’s the holiday of retailers, of familial selfishness, of greed, of the child consumer and the childish consumer. It basically represents the opposite of what we need to teach our children.

Just look at Santa Claus, bearded and pot-bellied, entertaining the passersby on the sidewalk. The man who dresses as Santa gets paid to do it. I can excuse him for this – one has to earn a living – but I cannot excuse his employer. In fact, I’m surprised that our churches don’t criticize this. The belief in Santa Claus is worse than heresy, which at least has good faith in itself. Santa is just a superstition for children, a lie for adults, and a generally stupid concept. When my three sons were little, I didn’t have the courage to resist the pressure from society. I pretended, like everyone else. Am I wrong? I don’t know. But what a relief when the truth was revealed; when the boys, very early on, indicated that they didn’t believe in this nonsense!

And what is the opposite of Santa Claus? A child rather than an old man. Poor rather than rich. Hidden rather than exposed. He who has nothing to sell, nothing to give, nothing more than his life and his love. The opposite of Santa Claus is Jesus Christ: the naked infant between the bull and the donkey, the innocent victim between two thieves, the crib and Calvary. These two images, in their extremes, are the most famous of the beautiful nativity story. They demonstrate the essence of this God, who is the weakest of all gods, the most human, and for all that, the most earthshaking.

I don’t believe that Jesus is God or the son of God. He is the Son of man, as they say, begotten and not created, and ultimately born of a woman, just as we all were. It’s in this sense that he is truly our brother. I like that he had a family, that he was loved from the beginning, and because of that, he learned to love. This is the spirit of the Son: the will to be loved precedes the will to love, and renders it possible. In this way the Son is more human than the Father, though fathers are only human because they were first sons.

What does Jesus symbolize? The primacy of love, even when weak, defeated, humbled, and tortured. Easter marks his victory, his omnipotence, his divinity. Christmas marks his weakness, his fragility, his humanity. This is why Christmas has more significance to me. It’s not the victory that I like, it’s the love. Not the power, but the justice. Not divinity, but humanity.

This is why I am an atheist, while remaining faithful – as best as I can – to the spirit of Christ, who represents justice and charity. That is the true spirit of Christmas – the basic opposite of which is the spirit of Santa Claus (if he has a spirit at all), and beyond that it is the spirit of his zealous fans, big and small, who embody selfishness and consumption.

MY RANT/REBUTTAL TO THE ABOVE BILGE

by Andrew Russell

Andre Comte-Sponville has certainly demonstrated loyalty to the first half of his surname in this article. Indeed, I find this article to be a wonderfully accurate distillation of the spirit of (Christian) Christmas. This explains why I always applauded King Herod and wished the little bastard (Jesus) was axed the minute he crawled out of Mary's immaculate uterus. Considering Comte-Sponville's atheism, his article embodies Christian morality much more consistently than many Christians.

Comte-Sponville sounds like Auguste Comte. His equation of "consumption" and "consumers" with "immoral" is textbook socialism, and his reduction of Christmas to economic forces (it being a "retailers holiday") is textbook Marxism. Combined with condemnations of "greed" and "selfishness" that would make Auguste proud, it comes as no surprised that he once wrote a book entitled "Is Capitalism Moral?" (2004), no surprises for guessing what his answer to that retorical question is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Comte-Sponville).

Comte-Sponville shows that Socialists, who once proclaimed how Socialism will deliver all the material goods our heart desires, have been forced (in the face of overwhelming evidence that Socialism will not and can not deliver the material goods our hearts desire) to condemn Capitalism for delivering said material goods. In the end, it is apparent their objection to Capitalism has nothing to do with the consequences of Capitalism (and Socialism), but rather their hatred of self-interest (which they call "greed" and "familial selfishness" (so now it is immoral to care for your family over others? Gee, Rand was prophetic now wasn't she!)).

So now we know what Comte-Sponville hates (self-interest, love of those special to oneself over those that aren't (the Transgression of Preference!), the desire to make oneself happy, etc). So now we may ask what does he like? Comte-Sponville's words betray his monstrous excuse for a code of values, again all derived from Auguste. Comte-Sponville obviously considers Christ the image of the moral man, the man as man should be. To Comte-Sponville, Christ is poor, has nothing to sell (after all, that would be capitalistic!), nothing of worth to give to others apart from his life and his love, is more or less a weak, submissive, pathetic whipping boy doomed to be flogged, crowned with thorns, nailed and slowly, slowly suffocated for six hours. The weakest as the greatest, the most lowly lifted to the level of pure exhultation, and in this "he is truly our brother."

If Comte-Sponville claims to love humanity, he is pathetically deluded. His image of mankind is of the perpetual beggar, the brutalized and tormented innocent, "the defeated, the humbled, the tortured," Comte showing nothing but admiration for "his weakness, his fragility, his humanity." The implication being that the triumphant, the proud, the joyous, the truly alive, is not truly human. Comte-Sponville is an avatar of misanthropy.

Comte-Sponville is correct that the "spirit of Christ" is the opposite of the "selfishness and consumption" embodied by secularized Christmas. Comte-Sponville, however, allies himself with the wrong set of values. Comte-Sponville values sufferring, pain, deprivation, grovelling, and being victimized, wheras selfishness and consumption are premised on valuing life, joy, pleasure, happiness, satisfaction and pride. Since I do not share Comte-Sponville's masochistic death fetish, I ally myself with the values of life.

Number one it is a false dichotomy

As an atheist or non-Christian you can choose BOTH Jesus and Santa.

We can choose Jesus for the superb example of civilized humanity he taught and lived.

And this was no accident. If you examine the little we know of his early life, you can see where this came from .

I just wish more modern Christian would REALLY follow his example. Especially those in "leadership" positions in our societies. The are creating a Jesus in their own mind that is nothing more that a Stalinist dictator, who has issued them orders for a global, and soon to be wholesale, violation of individual rights and the humanity of the individual.

I just wish they would REALLY follow his example and leadership, and not those who claim or want to substitute for Him.

[Renee Katz]

It's hard not to get excited about the atheist movement, and to like people like Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens. As far as it represents a profound concern with truth and a love of this world, I think it is a good thing.