Christmas the Secular, Christmas the American

Is it appropriate for non-Christian Americans to celebrate Christmas? Many do, and why not? I’m an atheist—or, more precisely, a person of reason—and I have no problem celebrating Christmas, even though it has no religious significance for me.

Christmas is obviously a religious holiday for many, signifying the birth of the Christian icon Jesus Christ. But as an American holiday, Christmas is and, by authority of our own Constitution, a secular holiday. That makes it a holiday for everyone. Therefore, people are free to celebrate Christmas according to any meaning they choose.

Why do I say that? Two reasons—one moral, one Constitutional.

I am indebted to philosopher Ayn Rand for showing that, philosophically, in America, Christmas can’t be strictly a Christian holiday. In answer to the question of whether it is appropriate for an atheist to celebrate Christmas, Rand observed:

Yes, of course. A national holiday, in this country, cannot have an exclusively religious meaning. The secular meaning of the Christmas holiday is wider than the tenets of any particular religion: it is good will toward men—a frame of mind which is not the exclusive property… of the Christian religion.

This makes perfect sense. Neither Christianity nor any particular religion can have an exclusive claim on morality. “Good will toward men” is not a monopoly of Christianity. Rand’s reference to the National Holiday aspect of Christmas points to another important reason why Christmas in America cannot be the exclusive domain of Christianity, or of religion more generally.

Here, I am also indebted to the framers of the U.S. Constitution. As the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In 1870, Congress made Christmas a national legal holiday. This means that anyone who claims, as one NJ letter-to-the-editor wrote, that Without Jesus Christ you can't have Christmas, that person is repudiating the U.S. Constitution. A national religious holiday in a secular nation founded on the principle of separation of church and state (freedom of religion and conscience) is a logical impossibility. Since to have a secular government means to have one that is neutral with regards to the fundamental conscientious beliefs of all of its citizens, an American national holiday by definition cannot be religious.

In fact, what we today call Christmas originally didn't have any connection to Jesus at all, writes Onkar Ghate in U.S.News & World Report:

Before Christians co-opted the holiday in the fourth century (there is no reason to believe Jesus was born in December), it was a pagan celebration of the winter solstice, of the days beginning to grow longer. The Northern European tradition of bringing evergreens indoors, for instance, was a reminder that life and production were soon to return to the now frozen earth.

The Romans celebrated the Winter Solstice with the holiday Saturnalia. In Northern Europe, the holiday was called Yule.

Indeed, as philosopher Leonard Peikoff observes over at Capitalism Magazine, the leading secular Christmas symbol - Santa Claus - actually contradicts some standard Christian tenets:

Santa Claus is a thoroughly American invention. ... In 1822, an American named Clement Clarke Moore wrote a poem about a visit from St. Nick. It was Moore (and a few other New Yorkers) who invented St. Nick's physical appearance and personality, came up with the idea that Santa travels on Christmas Eve in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, comes down the chimney, stuffs toys in the kids' stockings, then goes back to the North Pole.

...Santa implicitly rejected the whole Christian ethics. He did not denounce the rich and demand that they give everything to the poor; on the contrary, he gave gifts to rich and poor children alike. Nor is Santa a champion of Christian mercy or unconditional love. On the contrary, he is for justice -- Santa gives only to good children, not to bad ones.

When Congress declared Christmas a National Holiday, in 1870, Christmas ceased being a strictly religious observance and became a secular holiday. A legal religious holiday in a nation dedicated to freedom of religion and conscience is a contradiction. (The Founders used the terms “religion” and conscience” interchangeably. They understood religious freedom to include the freedom not to believe in or practice any religion—in effect, not just freedom of religion, but freedom from religion as well; i.e. separation of religion and state.) Being a national legal holiday, Christmas can have non-religious, non-Christian meaning just as validly as a Christian meaning. It’s a matter of individual preference. Otherwise, what’s the point of freedom of conscience?

So, regardless of your personal beliefs, go ahead and enjoy Christmas on your own terms.

On that note, let me extend to everyone a hearty wish for a joyous, safe, and thoroughly non-contradictory…

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Related Reading:

How the Welfare State Stole Christmas, by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Don't Need Christ to Celebrate Christmas

Why Christmas Should be More Commercial—Leonard Peikoff

The Real Meaning of Christmas: What Would Jesus Teach Today?

A ‘War on Christmas?’ No: A War on non-Christians

CEO Assassination Draws a Bright Moral Line Across American Culture

The shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson stunned me. But the general reaction to the shooting absolutely shocked me almost beyond belief. Instead of unequivocal universal condemnation, equivocation seems to be the dominant reaction. The murder is said to have “triggered” a debate on America’s healthcare system, implying that maybe the probable shooter, Luigi Mangione, had on some level a justification or did us a favor by highlighting some flaw in American healthcare. CNBC, which should know better, actually exploited the shooting by airing a segment on healthcare.

I’ve had people say to me things like “I’m not saying it’s right, but I understand his frustration. Our healthcare is out of control.” This is to say, “It’s not right, but it’s right.” In a statement of that sort, the words before the “but” are repudiated by what follows.  

This is shocking and sickening to me. And it’s not just regular people. A sitting U.S. Senator, Elizabeth Warren, essentially justified the murder in the same vein, saying “The visceral response from people across this country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the health care system. Violence is never the answer, but people can be pushed only so far." Translation: “Violence is not justified, unless you are pushed too far.”

Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch emphasized what I’m saying in an excellent piece. In Against ‘But …’ Goldberg writes:

There’s an old idea, most recently popularized by Game of Thrones, that says “Everything before the word ‘but’ is bullsh-t.”

“I really like Todd, but … ”

“I don’t believe in censorship, but …  ”

“I’m not gay, but … ”

The idea that everything after the “but” is BS in the case of Luigi Mangione is both true and false simultaneously. The people saying, “Murder is wrong but …” feel the need to say the right or responsible thing, but what they really desire is to talk about how the murderer of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thomposon had a point. “Violence is never the answer, but people can be pushed only so far,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren insists. (In fairness, she backtracked, a bit,  after people accurately interpreted her statement.) 

My point here is that murder is wrong and everything after the “but” is BS. I’m not saying that the complaints about health insurance companies in general or UnitedHealth in particular are entirely untrue or unfounded. I’m saying that the conversation people want to have after the but is appalling and grotesque. 

The people who think Brian Thompson had it coming because some people are angry about their health care are in profound moral error. The . . . “murder is wrong, but …” . . . mob whisperers . . . are rationalizing [the] profound moral error.

Here is my Facebook Statement:

Jonah Goldberg is the first public intellectual I have come across who has strongly validated my thoughts regarding the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione (allegedly, I suppose I should say).

The murder—in fact, assassination—of the health insurance CEO has triggered a “debate” on America’s healthcare system. This is utterly shocking! It is an indication of how the morals of America’s culture has sunk. One would think that any debate over some flaw in healthcare would end at the line that (should) separate legitimate debate from cold-blooded violence, especially murder.

It’s not just that some people are celebrating the killing. Those people are obviously monsters. There are always monsters. What’s so shocking is the apparently large number of people who are giving moral support to these cold-blooded monsters by simultaneously condemning the killing and in the same breath qualifying that condemnation with a “but . . .,” such as “but I can understand the frustration” or some variation. These people are effectively condoning the assassination of an innocent hardworking man through equivocation. The “It’s wrong, but . . .” equivocation is essentially saying that killing an individual who symbolizes some flaw in American healthcare is OK under some circumstances. Worse, this line of logic implies an endorsement of the broader idea that assassination can be a legitimate reaction of anyone with a strong enough grievance against any American institution. Equivocators, how do you think some would-be copycat assassin will interpret your “murder is wrong, but …” moral abomination? Likely, as a green light.

The CEO assassination has apparently drawn a bright moral line across America. One side represents the moral good, and the other the moral evil. The good side is where the people who firmly condemn this cold-blooded, premeditated assassination. 

The other side—the evil side—is where the monsters who cheer are, obviously. But it’s also the same side where the “It’s wrong, but . . .” equivocators stand. Of these two, the equivocators are the most morally guilty. Why? These are typically otherwise decent people who unwittingly give moral cover to the monsters. Nonetheless, they cannot be excused. Evil thrives when good people give it moral sanction. And sanction for evil is exactly what the equivocators give to the monsters. 

We Americans love political, economic, and cultural debates, especially controversial—even rowdy—ones. But there is a line around debate that should NEVER be crossed or even blurred—the line where violence begins. 

Count me on the side of moral good. There is no place in America for the politics of assassination. No political or economic grievance justifies it. We have freedom of speech to settle those.

Related Reading:

Elizabeth Warren, CEO-Assassin Cheerleader by Liz Wolfe for Reason

The CEO killing is awakening the ‘yes, but ...’ brigade by Megan McArdle for WAPO

AOC's Justifications of Violence by Liz Wolfe for Reason

The Constitution, Property Rights, and Climate Change

QUORA: According to the U.S. Constitution, one of the government’s essential roles is to protect property. Climate change and rising sea levels put some property at risk of flooding. What do conservatives want to do about this?

My answer:

Let me start by stating unequivocally that I am not a conservative. I speak only for myself. 

As to the question, it’s true that one of the government’s essential roles is to protect property. That is made crystal clear in the 5th and 14th Amendments, as well as throughout the Federalist Papers. But that protection extends only to human predators, be they the government, domestic criminals, or foreign enemies. Natural processes, like sea level rise, are outside the scope of government. And, yes, climate change and sea level rise, even if partially linked to human activities, is a natural process. Man is part of nature, and like all life forms, man has a particular mode of survival, which is to apply his mind and labor to altering, re-shaping, and improving the natural conditions of nature to his own benefit. But natural processes are not human predators, and thus don’t fall under the essential government role to protect anyone’s property.

Of course, the U.S. government can and does tax its citizens to build seawalls, dikes, sand dunes, and the like to protect coastal properties from the seas. We can argue whether or not the government should be doing it. But, to my understanding, that is not authorized anywhere in the Constitution. 

Elsewhere, Dennis Manning Answered, in part:

The Preamble to the Constitution lays out the basics of essential roles…to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for common defense, promote general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for us and future generations. Defense of the nation is not the same as protecting property. That is not the government’s role.

My reply:

I generally agree with everything beyond the first paragraph, which is completely erroneous in its conclusion—”protecting property . . . is not the government’s role.”

What is Justice, if not to secure rights to persons and property? What, exactly, does “the blessings of liberty” mean, if not the right of property, without which no other rights, including the right to life, are possible? If you’ve ever read the Federalist Papers, the Constitution’s definitive resource, you would know that the protection of property rights is a primary goal of the government. E.G. Federalist 54: “Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons of individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore may be considered as represented by those who are charged with the government.” John Locke, the Founders’ most cited Enlightenment philosopher and the originator of the concept of unalienable individual rights, understood property rights to be inextricably linked to man’s rights. Man, Locke argued, has a fundamental natural right to his own person, and by logical extension to the product of his own labor, and that the government’s job is to secure those Natural Rights to Property, along with Life and Liberty, through its laws.

As to the Constitution:

The 5th Amendment states “. . . No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 14th Amendment states “. . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

And what exactly does “the common defense” (“defense of the nation”) mean, if not protecting the rights of its citizens, including their private property? 

Related Reading:

The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay

The Primacy of Property Rights and the American Founding -- David Upham for FEE

Property Rights and the Constitution -- Cato Handbook for Policymakers

More on Harris’s Wealth Tax Scheme

QUORA: ‘Do Harris voters know she wants to tax unrealized capital meaning if you own your house and the value goes up you have to pay taxes on the increased value even though it may go back down later?’

In answer to the above question, Jeremy Losek attempted to answer the question by claiming that the tax is only limited to a few tax dodgers exploiting a legal technicality. Losek writes:

This is not what Harris means when she says she want [sic] to tax unrealized capital gains. She isn’t going after people who purchase stock and then sit on it till retirement.

She is going after wealthy people who get paid in stock to avoid income taxes.

Losek goes on to purportedly show the gimmicks those wealthy people use to turn the allegedly untaxed stock income into an income tax-skirting windfall. But Losek falls flat, because he starts from a false premise—that compensation paid in stock is not subject to regular income tax. But as I explain, those supposed “tax loopholes” are beside the point. My reply: 

In fact, the value of stock paid as compensation is taxable as regular income. The method of taxation varies with how the stock is paid. But, ultimately, tax is owed. 

Of course, this is a rationalization. If, as Harris claimed, there are loopholes that allow a few wealthy people to legally skirt taxes, then the answer is simply to fix the existing tax rules that allow it. Why institute a draconian new tax to fix a problem that enables a handful of tax dodgers?

Because those few are not the intent.

What Harris has in mind is a sinister scheme to open Americans’ vast long-term growth savings and investment to taxation, with income tax loopholes as an excuse. Don’t be duped by her promise to exempt most of us from the tax. Once the precedent is set, and the principle that the government can tax potential income (unrealized capital gains) is accepted, the tax will inevitably be expanded to ensnare all of us. Even AXIOS, which fact-checked Harris’s scheme, understood this:

There's also a slippery slope concern; the big mental and legislative hurdle is taxing unrealized capital gains — after that, lowering the threshold below $100 million would be easier, even if not currently on the table. 

The same goes for expanding the scope of the tax to more sources of unrealized capital gains, such as houses. Once enacted, what limiting principle is there to stop the political class?

The federal income tax was originally sold to Americans as a tax only on a few super-rich Americans.

Fortunately, Harris lost the election, and the Republicans control Congress. So the danger of a wealth tax is nil—for now. But don’t kid yourself. The idea won’t go away. 

Related Reading:

The Truth about Harris’s Proposed Tax on Unrealized Capital Gains

Unrealized Capital Gains Taxes Will Trickle Down to the Middle Class by Peter Jacobsen for FEE

Joe Manchin on Biden's Wealth Tax: 'You Can't Tax Something That's Not Earned.' by Peter Suderman for Reason

Plans to Tax Unrealized Capital Gains Are Beyond Radical. They’re Ridiculous by Jack Salmon for National Review

Biden Is Trying To Pass a Wealth Tax—Again. It Could Be Unconstitutional by Ira Stoll for Reason

Thanksgiving Message 2024

My special thanks this year go to business, both large and small. Business is the mainstay of the free Capitalist economy. What amazes me is how innovative and productive business continues to be given how much the Capitalist—i.e. free—portion of the economy has shrunk under the weight of the massive, and still growing, regulatory welfare state. Add to that that business, especially the most successful, is the most persecuted minority in America today. It is under attack, not for its vices, but for its virtues. By whom? By egalitarians, who label their money-earning success as "greed." With all of the Woke claptrap about “oppressed” groups, business is somehow not among them. Yet business gets blamed for every societal ill, even as it manages to keep us all alive and somehow moving forward under the meager remnants of Capitalistic economic freedom—and still make a profit. So, here’s a shout out to American business: THANK YOU for your profit-seeking service. 

RELATED:

ARI: TURN #GIVINGTUESDAY INTO TRADING TUESDAY

ON THIS HOLIDAY, GIVE THANKS TO THE PRODUCERS

Democracy Wouldn’t Be a Gamble if American Principles are Adhered to.

Theodore R. Johnson posted a thoughtful pre-election op-ed in the Washington Post titled Black voters are joining a coalition. It’s always a gamble. “Black voters,” Johnson writes, “must always wonder whether their partners at the ballot box will remain partners after a victory” :

Black voters keep a watchful eye for these signs. Their trust in democracy — both the system and the people who operate it — is hard-earned. For them, choosing the right coalition partners has not been just a question of policy wins but a matter of life and death. The same system that legislated slavery and Jim Crow became the tool that secured rights and opportunity. This checkered past gives their politics a pronounced pragmatism, rooted in an understanding that Black people in America fare best when the federal government makes civil rights a priority. Their numbers and political solidarity give them electoral power — valuable even to those who might despise them.

My emphasis highlights a crucial philosophical observation that begs the question: “Is the American system both the ‘system that legislated slavery and Jim Crow’ and the system that protects civil rights the same?” Are they even compatible? Put differently, did the Founders create a Democracy, which means unlimited majority rule with our individual rights determined by vote? Or did they create a constitutionally limited republic that limits democratic power and prioritizes individual rights, which means rights are unalienable and thus outside the authority for any electoral majority to infringe? 

I posted these comments:

Democracy wouldn’t have to be a gamble if American principles are adhered to. Yes, democracy can enslave people or subjugate them under segregation. Or it can liberate them, all based on the vagaries of electoral outcomes. Democracy unconstrained by constitutional protections for individual rights is fundamentally totalitarian. That’s democracy. 

But it’s not America. 

America is the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes that fundamental intellectual, political, and economic individual rights to life, liberty, and property are equal and universal, are unalienable, and precede government. A constitution based on these principles protects us from the three basic governmental manifestations of tyranny identified by James Madison; the tyranny of the one (autocracy), of the few (aristocracy), or of the many (democracy). The U.S. Constitution, despite its flaws, is intended to implement these principles and thus secure our liberties by limiting the powers of the government.

That’s why it’s crucial to recognize that America is a constitutionally limited republic, not a democracy. Slavery and Jim Crow—and, now, the steadily encroaching “soft” tyranny of the regulatory welfare state—result when people calling themselves Americans abandon the Founding principles, and declare that America is a democracy. But no one’s rights should ever be determined by majority vote. We must recommit to the principles of the Declaration and the legislative power-limiting intent of the Constitution so that elections no longer have to be a gamble on our civil liberties. 

Related Reading:

America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters

Abortion Rights and Majority Rule

Rights and Democracy

Constitutional Republicanism: A Counter-Argument to Barbara Rank’s Ode to Democracy

Mesmerized by Elections, the NJ Star-Ledger Forgot that Tyranny is Tyranny

The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty—Timothy Sandefur

QUORA: Why does the Pledge of Allegiance say the USA is Republican not Democratic?

Senator Mike Lee is Right: America ‘is not a Democracy’