How Democracy Stole Christmas: 

A revealing glance at the founding fathers’ religious influences

and how they will eventually destroy Christianity

by Korey Look

for Advanced Composition, ETSU, Spring 2011

            Ever feel like they are trying to take Jesus out of Christmas?  Perhaps you don’t.  Maybe you are too busy celebrating winter solstice or Hanukkah to notice.  Or maybe you feel Jesus is no more believable than Santa and spend every December 25th viewing the wonderful holiday television lineup; who knows?  Whether it is apparent or not, many Christians feel victim to a developing blitzkrieg against not only Christmas, but the religion as a whole.  Businesses and advertisements replace Merry Christmas for Happy Holidays while the employees return people their change and send them on their way with a cold “have a good Holiday”, and Santa and Reindeer replace nativity scenes in the windows.  The so-called anti-Christian epidemic continues to sweep across the nation forcing those in opposition to either stand idly by and watch the nation change, or stand up and resist the change causing the Christian holiday to be pushed out of the spotlight.

            My name is Korey Look and I am an undergraduate English Major at East Tennessee State in Johnson City, Tennessee.  I am a very spiritual person who has been immersed in the Christian religion my entire life.  Although I am a Christian, I find myself leaning toward more of a Unitarian perspective, and it frustrates me to hear other Christians complain about how the religion is being pushed out of the spotlight.  The notion that Christianity is being overtaken by dark and evil forces is one all too familiar to me.

            I was working in retail a couple of years ago and an interesting experience with a customer around the holiday season.  It was a bitterly cold December evening at the State of Franklin Pizza Hut in Johnson City, Tennessee.  The ever-lingering scent of pizza combined the smoky December night air, and one could sense the building anticipation for the upcoming festivities.  A pizza place in the buckle of the Bible belt never fails bring in an abundance of southern Christian folks, most of which want only to enjoy a slice of pizza or two and kindly move on with their lives.  Say the wrong phrase to the wrong person however, and they have the potential to become an evil-fighting Christian soldier out for blood.

Whenever I cashed out a customer I returned them their change and dismissed them with a kind salutation.  As the night went on, I was approached by a short, middle-aged sip of water at the conclusion of his dining experience.  Although small in stature, I could sense the man’s standoffish demeanor before I even said a word.   Although he stood at a much lower altitude, I could feel the man looking down on me through his rigid spectacles somehow while he wrote a check to pay for his family’s meal.  After cashing him out, I said, “thank you very much sir, have a good evening and enjoy your holiday”.

I chose the word “holiday”, not out of instruction or because I am a Christmas-hating atheist, but to avoid offending anyone by assuming every customer celebrates Christmas.  I used the same phrase with all of the prior customers without any issues.  However, upon hearing my salutation, the man felt it necessary to correct me saying, “Actually, it’s Merry Christmas” and walked out of the store glaring at me.  It was probably safe to assume there was no “Coexist” bumper sticker on his vehicle as I watched him exit the parking lot.  Perhaps I brought it on myself to acknowledge the existence of other religions beyond his bubble of Christianity, but I couldn’t help but feel discouraged with this passionate Christian’s ignorance.  This kind of behavior is a perfect example of the delusional combativeness I find so frustrating with many fellow Christians.

            Why did he take offense to my salutation?  I thought Christmas was a holiday filled with love and togetherness.  It makes me wonder where this sense of defensiveness and paranoia comes from.  The source of this ambiguous intolerance is difficult to conclusively pinpoint to a single cause.  However, as in most cases of ignorance, fear, and Christian ideology-fueled paranoia, Fox News does not help the situation.  Author John Gibson wrote a brief article on foxnews.com.  In the article he discusses the recent support he has received for his book The War on Christmas.  Despite the article’s brevity, his words are dripping with distain and bias.  One example is his irrational assertion that changing the name of Christmas Break to “winter” or “holiday” break will influence children to practice Pagan worship of the winter season.  He also uses polarizing dialogue saying, “It’s already started in Britain.  It’s only a matter of days before it crosses the pond and starts up again here.  That’s my word” (www.foxnews.com).  Mr. Gibson’s inflammatory words make it easy to see how illogical the crusade to restore Christmas really is. 

            In addition to the alleged attack on Christmas, “Jesus-haters” continue beyond their holiday conquest to find other areas to rid of Christianity.  Several courthouses throughout the nation once proudly displayed the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments in their foyers and lobbies.  More of these sculptures and tablets are regularly being removed and cited as unconstitutional.  One example of this is the court case McCreary County V. ACLU.  In 2005, the local government in McCreary County, Kentucky tried to pass legislation insisting the Ten Commandments belonged in the court house because Christianity is the sole source of American Law.  Unfortunately for the pro-Christian warriors, they could not gain a majority vote and the bill was shot down as unconstitutional (Hamilton 41).

            This court case brings out some interesting ideas.  Does this mean that America’s founders intended the nation to be exclusively a Christian nation?  Was Christianity the sole inspiration for American law and the constitution?  Were the founding fathers guided by Christian principles alone?  History would suggest otherwise.  Technically speaking, the American religious demographic is and always has been predominately Christian.  Seventy-six percent of American adults identified as being Christian in 2008 (Kosmin 2).  In a democracy, the dominant religion holds more political influence with more representation.  However, that does not mean that Christianity is superior to any other religion because it has more political representation, constitutionally speaking.  That is one reason why there are so many diverse religious immigrants in the country; America offers the safety and freedom to practice any religion openly, without fear of death and/or government interference. In fact, America’s first immigrants came to America for the same reason.  During colonization, the Puritans left England to escape religious persecution and to practice their faith freely in the new world.  America defined the notion of religious freedom long before it actually became a nation.

The Kentucky legislature’s assertion that Christianity was the sole source of American law is presumptuous to say the least; for a couple of different reasons.  First of all, claiming that Christianity is the sole inspiration for American democracy paints the picture of a group of ancient white Christian folk that modeled the constitution directly from the Christian doctrine.  It is true that many people involved in creating the constitution were Christians and regular church-goers so there is no doubt that Christianity had a direct impact on the creation of law and government.  However, suggesting that Christianity was the sole inspiration implies that Christianity is a superior religion to which all other religions and other aspects of life, like government, should be modeled.  On the contrary, citizens of all walks of faith were taken into consideration when developing the constitution; not solely Christianity.  Thomas Jefferson was quoted once saying, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god” (Holmes 81).  This suggests that the author of The Declaration of Independence takes no issue with citizens of different or absence of faith; a clear moral building block for religious freedom.  The founding fathers created the government to be free for everyone, not just for all the different flavors of Christianity.

            Another reason the legislature’s proposal is inaccurate is the presumption that Christianity in late 18th century America is the same as it is today.  In fact, Christianity and society are much different in many ways.   A Christian in 1776 would have been concerned with different social, political, and religious issues than a Christian in today’s world.  For example, a modern-day American Christian doesn’t struggle with the issue of slavery.  Many of the Christian founding fathers owned slaves themselves.  Slavery was a very real issue in late 18th century America; something Americans today have only second-hand knowledge of.  The idea that American democracy was created by perfect people that exclusively followed traditional Christian theology is inaccurate.

It is difficult to fully understand the founding fathers’ intentions and guiding principles, but history and biography provide some clues.  There is no doubt that America is a nation built with the influence of Christianity, but the founders could not form a genuine and effective democracy without allowing citizens to practice their own religion and denomination openly.  Many of the Christian founding fathers were involved in a trend in spiritual and philosophical school of thought called Deism.  In his book The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, author David L. Holmes provides a detailed description of Deism and its relation to the founding fathers.  Holmes reveals that Deism “emerged from the Enlightenment, a complex movement of ideas marked by an emphasis on human inquiry as well as a self-confident challenge of traditional political, religious, and social ideas” (40).  Fueled by the scientific and philosophical ideas of minds like Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Isaac Newton, Deism began in Europe and would eventually gain popularity in the American colonies.  Deism argued that “human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determined the validity of human beliefs” (40).  The practice of focusing on rationality and science varies greatly from both the standards Christianity of the time, and forms of modern Christian practices.  In other words, people who take offense to all-religion-encompassing phrases like “Happy Holidays” acknowledge other types of thoughts than logical ones.

            The school of Deism would eventually be viewed as controversial.  Holmes reveals that polarizing figures like Voltaire and Thomas Paine pushed Deism to another level; to the point of radicalism.  They viewed Christianity as “a barrier to moral improvement and to social justice” (41).  Needless to say, orthodox Christians found these polarizing figures distasteful and dismissed them as heretics.  This does not mean, however, that the founding fathers were heretics, but sharing the practice of Deism with such polarizing members no doubt brings about skepticism.  Thomas Jefferson, for example, never outwardly expressed his Deism; he presented himself as Anglican and Episcopalian his entire life.  In fact, whenever he shared his thoughts on religion, he requested that they would be shared with no one (Holmes 81).  The fact that an early-American politician was wary about revealing his Deistic background proves that the founding fathers were not perfect Christians who built America for Jesus.

            Jefferson is one of the most revered figures in American history.  Although he was secretive about his potentially controversial religious beliefs, he did more for our country than most.  His Deist perspective influenced different aspects of early American government.  Not only did Jefferson compose the Declaration of Independence, his Deism had an integral part in influencing the freedom of religion, and separation of church and state in education and the constitution. Holmes reveals that Jefferson strongly opposed the influence Christianity had on higher education.  He tried to eliminate these influences from his Alma Mater, William and Mary.  When he was unable to eliminate this influence, he started the University of Virginia, an essentially Deistic institution (85).

            Ironically, Jefferson personally campaigned to rid William and Mary of Christian influences, the college was once, as Holmes explains, a Deistic “hotbed of infidelity and of the wild politics of France” other important American figures like James Monroe and George Washington were also affiliated with the school and therefore affiliated with, or at least exposed to, Deism (50).  Some founding fathers weren’t nearly as secretive about their Deism.  Renowned inventor and founding father Benjamin Franklin was convinced that he was a Deist by the time he was fifteen years old (54).  Unlike many Deists, Franklin had no opposition to organized religion.  In fact, he felt it “could benefit society by encouraging public virtue as well as by promoting social order” and “urged his daughter Sarah to ‘go constantly to church’”(55).  Although Jefferson and Franklin expressed their views of religion differently, the diversity of ideals allowed them to develop a government allows for the freedom of religion and develop boundaries as well.

            Although these are only a couple examples of early American religion, the point is this: many of the people involved with the creation of the American constitution were concerned with other faiths than traditional orthodox Christianity, thus proving that America is not exclusively a Christian nation.  People who want to start a counter crusade against this fail to understand that speaking out against their neighbors’ religions is not only counterproductive, but contradictory to the teachings of The Bible and Jesus Christ and the founding fathers’ intentions for religious freedom.  God says in The Bible, “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19: 18).

I hold no ill will toward the customer who dragged me into his holy war and I truly hope he enjoyed his Christmas.  I know I enjoyed mine.  I only hope experience will teach him and others like him to be more accepting of people’s differences, so that next time he will accept my salutation and carry on knowing that there is no war on Christianity, only equality of every religion.  Although he and I celebrate Christmas, there are millions of our brothers and sisters who do not.  I hope that one day he will look to our nation, as I do, with a sense of pride, and rather than demonize and divide ourselves we can both rejoice in our freedom to worship how we please.

 

Works Cited

Gibson, John. "Supporting 'The War on Christmas' - The Big Story W/ Gibson and Nauert - FOXNews.com." FoxNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175827,00.html>.  This online article is a brief response to feedback Mr. Gibson was receiving about his book.  Although it is quite short it has excellent examples of the fear charged dialogue that fuels the “war on Christmas”.

 

Hamilton, Marci A. "Faith-based History." The American Prospect 18.12 (2007): 41+. Print.  This online journal article is review of a book discussing the connection between democracy and Christianity.  She refutes many of the authors claims and debunks them with historical context.  She also cites a useful example of a court case involving this removal of the Ten Commandments from a local courthouse.  

 

Holmes, David L.  The Faiths of the Founding Fathers.  Oxford, New York:  Oxford University Press, 2006.   Print.  Mr. Holmes’ book is a wonderful piece of literature.  His presentation of the religions of the founding fathers is both thorough and informative.  Many of his revealing points are the strong points of my argument.

 

Kosmin, Barry A., and Ariela Keysar. American Religious Identification Survey. Rep. Hartford: Trinity College, 2008. Print.  This source gave me statistics on the percentage of Christians in America

 

Leviticus. Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version. Nashville: Cokesbury, 1990. Print.  Quoting Leviticus 19: 18 is the perfect end to my argument.  It’s funny, I always thought Leviticus was a lengthy list of things you shouldn’t do mixed in with some good old fashioned gay bashing.  God pretty well nailed it on the head with this one line though.