Merry Whatever! The "War On Christmas" and the Function Of Compromise

Okay, so it's That Time Of Year, and my next topic has just chosen itself.

These days, it seems like the battle over public decoration is becoming just as traditional as the decoration itself. The next generation may fondly recall December as that magical time of year when reindeer fly over the roof and sparks fly over the nativity scene! And each year as it begins, I find that I just want to sit the combatants down with each other and gently tell them to shut up and listen to each other. (Well, you know what I mean.)

You see, I can't help feeling that, if we were aiming to actually find a solution to the problem, the discussions would be quite different... but alas, we're too busy trying to be right to see or explore any potential compromises. We each want the perfect solution - i.e., MY solution, the one that makes utter and absolute sense to me and every other intelligent person, and which everyone else would understand in a flash if they'd only stop being so hard-headed.

Riiiiiight. And how's that workin' out for ya, my friends?

One result of such tactics - besides a degree of possibly unnecessary and definitely unproductive unpleasantness - is that the problem is never even clearly defined, for each side wants to define it in their own catch-phrases. To one side, it is about suppressing religion; to the other side, it is about imposing religion. Obviously, in a truly "free" country (and please just insert your own definition of that slippery term here, for the moment), we would not wish to do either of those things. And the problem gets even stickier when we conflate the holiday-decor issue with the related, but NOT identical, issue of religious displays and/or public activities at other times and for other purposes, especially permanent ones and especially in places such as schools and courtrooms. So let me be clear that, for the purpose of this particular argument, I am considering those to be two different issues, subject to different sets of criteria.

What makes it really complicated and annoying is that there are really more than two sides to the issue. For instance, some "pro-nativity" advocates would be perfectly fine with also allowing non-Christian religious, humanistic or secular displays alongside the manger scene; others would choke at the mere mention of any such idea. Some "anti-nativity" advocates would prefer to keep all public spaces free of any religious taint; others prefer an approach which requires public representation for all beliefs in a balanced fashion. There is simply no way to satisfy all comers.

But there is... compromise. It's an ugly word to some, but it is the basis of our ability to live together in this multireligious, pluricultural nation. It is, in some sense, the basis of our very Constitution. We like to act and speak as if the Constitution were a perfect document born of a completely realized, ideal philosophy of freedom - but what it really IS is a patchwork quilt of compromises, held together by the basic glue of tolerance. It outlines a system based on checks and balances, multiple levels of governance and appeal, and the understanding that we're not always going to agree. The Constitution is, perhaps, above all else, a document dedicated to the avoidance of excesses and extremes in our official relations with each other. It is aimed, not at creating a PERFECT government, but at creating one that is GOOD ENOUGH.

With that in mind, it seems that there must be some solution to the issue at hand which will, if not satisfy everyone equally, at least allow everyone some measure of satisfaction - provided that we actually WANT a workable solution, and want it enough that we are willing to make concessions in order to reach it. If all we want is to be right, and to continue to righteously defame our opponents, well, we can certainly keep on doing that until Judgment Day, Shiva's grand Dance of Destruction, or (with all due apologies to Douglas Adams) The Coming Of The Great White Handkerchief.

Would it hurt us to begin to think about potential compromise solutions, even if they don't fit our exact beliefs about how the matter "should" be decided? I'll toss one out for consideration... how about this: Seasonal decorations may be erected in designated public spaces during a designated holiday period, but must be placed there (i.e. paid for, maintained, and put up/taken down) by private organizations, individuals, or community groups. That way, if enough people in any given community want a public nativity scene, they can make it happen - and so can the folks who want to donate time and effort and funding for Hanukkah, Ramadan, Kwanzaa, Yule or other holiday displays, whether sacred or secular. Yes, this probably means that the majority (or best-funded) groups would end up with the most spectacular displays, but it also ensures that anyone can get into the game, and anyway, we all know that a display need not be spectacular in order to express a spirit of celebration (and that often the simplest is also the most moving). And sure, a special set of rules would need to be developed (and enforced) regarding parceling of space, safety regulations, and especially respectful behavior toward others' beliefs and displays - but isn't that in itself a useful exercise in tolerance, and a concrete demonstration of just the sort of "good will toward men" that so many like to preach at this time of year?

Oops, sorry, just let me get down off of this soapbox... ahhh, that's better. The above is far from perfect, but it's some sort of a starting point. Any other ideas? I'd love to hear them!

Above all, whatever compromise we might attempt would have to be rooted in respect toward those who do not share our beliefs or philosophies - and also in a genuine willingness to let go of the desire to have a privileged status, to be the only ones who are RIGHT and to bask in the support of the state for that rightness. Because, Ladies and Gentlemen (and Everyone In Between), I hate to tell you this, but it isn't the state's job to figure out who's right. It is only the state's job to help us all coexist despite the fact that we all think we're right. And since in a very real way, we are the state - isn't it up to us to find a way to make it work... for everyone?