Re: [humanism-174] Some more hatin' on X-mas
Friday, December 7, 2012 4:38 PM
I'm not saying that it's not good. Certainly people are trying to help others. And, yes, it's a choice to participate. But we've created and continue to perpetuate a holiday that glorifies consumerism and belittles those who don't participate. So of course economically stressed families want to provide a Christmas for their kids just as much as any other family does. But is it wise to celebrate a holiday that puts so much unneeded economic stress (besides other kinds of stress) on people?
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Scott Spalding <[address removed]> wrote:
Why can't the action simply be good? As far as I understand, the families involved on both sides of the program are there by choice. If they did the program respectful, then why can they just simply not participate?
It seems to remind me a bit of the "free ice cream" argument.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Matt <[address removed]>
Also, the idea of "adopting" a family seems to imply that the parent(s) of said family are somewhat less than adult and need to be taken on by responsible (i.e., moneyed) adults who can care for them until they're able to grow up and start buying presents again themselves. These programs are certainly a way to treat the unintended consequences of our all-pervasive, countrywide December party. But they also seem to be a way for the Christmas nuts to feel okay about trumpeting their consumerist holiday from every street corner, shopping center, office and school.