HAVE YOURSELF A MERRY NON-RELIGIOUS CHRISTMAS
December 9, 2009
The embattled Razzle Dazzle Czar, White House
Social Secretary Desiree Rogers says that the Obamas were planning a
"non-religious Christmas." According to the Sunday New York Times
the confession emerged at a luncheon earlier this year with former
White House social secretaries. The ladies must have choked on their
Caesar salads when Rogers went on to announce that the Obamas did
not intend to display the Christmas Creche--the manger scene that
traditionally occupies a central spot in the East Room. (This
revelation reportedly drew a gasp from the retired social
secretaries). The idea was that the absence of the Creche (i.e., Christ's
Birth) would make Christmas "more inclusive". Though there was
serious discussion of keeping the shepherds and the Holy Family in
storage, tradition finally won out. So good of the Social Secretary
to put Jesus on the Christmas party invite list.
But Desiree Rogers' comments, which presumably reflect the thoughts of the First couple, betray a troubling attitude toward religion and religious people. The upshot being: expressions of faith (even something as innocuous as a manger scene) are somehow "non-inclusive". Just to be consistent why not call the White House Christmas Parties: Winter Wonderland at the White House? Or maybe The White House Red and Green Affair?
Jesus isn't the only Jew that just barely got invited to the White House this holiday season. The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Desiree Rogers and company shrunk the annual White House Hanukkah party from 800 invitees to 400. No word yet on whether a Menorah will be present. But perhaps the invited should consider bringing their own. And just to be inclusive, keep them in your purses or under your coats.
There was no room at the inn for the baby Jesus, and almost no room in the Obama White House either. Why is anyone surprised? Almost a year into his presidency, Barack Obama still hasn't chosen a church. So why would he care if his social secretary Desiree Rogers was trying to take the Christ out of Christmas? Desiree, the descendant of a famous voodoo priestess, is too busy hobnobbing with Anna Wintour and Steven Speilberg to realize that her razzle dazzle charms are fizzling.
"What do we want the personality and the tone of the experience to be?" Ms. Rogers asked in an interview earlier this year, describing the Obamas' philosophy. "We want it to be inclusive, diverse, representative of all Americans, celebratory, authentic. So you sit and you say, O.K., how can we make this event" -- and here, Ms. Rogers paused for a moment, adding, "Obama-tized."
But 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 crèche. The response to Ms. Rogers reply 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 crèche.)
Yet in the end, tradition won out; the executive mansion is now decorated for the Christmas holiday, and the crèche is in its usual East Room spot.
This is a crazy-making thing about progressives. The Obamas really do seem to be cut off from the way normal people think and feel, as opposed to the academic liberal social elite. Only a former Chicago law professor and his circle would have the idea that the American people would welcome exiling a creche from Christmas decorations at the White House (for that matter, only someone from that rarefied social circle would see no problem with putting a porny weirdo like Kevin Jennings in as deputy education secretary).
The idea of the Obamas planning a "non-religious Christmas" is asinine and offensive. Do they really think non-Christians would somehow feel better if the White House didn't display a creche at Christmas? If you are so thin-skinned that you can't sleep at night over the idea that the president and his family, professed Christians, are displaying a creche in the White House, then you need to get over yourself. I honestly don't understand this impulse on the left, to scrub all manifestation of tradition from public life in the name of egalitarianism (a definition of a p.c. progressive: A person who fears that somewhere, someone is having fun while a member of an official Victim demographic feels left out). It's anti-human and ugly. South Park satirized it magnificently here (link takes you to a clip from the "Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo" episode; warning, slightly offensive language).
If they won't have the Baby Jesus, or will only have him grudgingly, maybe the White House can make room for Mr. Hankey. Seems fitting.
The stage is set and a full-frontal attempt at change is underway for next year. This year the Obamas merely dangled their feet in the water just to see how cold a reception an attempt to "neutralize" Christmas would be. They are just preparing us for a total ban of religion next year.
We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.