WORD TO THE WISE: THIS POST MAY OFFEND THE DEEPLY RELIGIOUS. THIS IS NOT MY INTENT, I AM WORKING THROUGH HOW I WANT TO CELEBRATE THIS SEASON WITH MY FAMILY. ALL OPINIONS ARE WELCOME, BUT DISPARAGEMENT OF OTHERS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
The Holiday Season is upon us and in full swing. Thanksgiving is a long forgotten memory as we get down to the nitty gritty of the season. I really like this time of year with all the decorations and general good cheer. However it also comes with it's own set issues. These can range all over the map. Some people get depressed around this time of year, others wonder how they are going to afford it, while others wonder how to celebrate.
I guess I sort of fall into the last camp. I mean we know how to celebrate the holiday in the traditional sense, but I am wondering how my little family and I are going to celebrate it in the coming years. I was brought up Roman Catholic with all the trappings surrounding this time of year. Advent, confession and a lot of masses and chapel to go to. My wife wasn't brought up in any specific religion and her family I guess could be categorized as celebrating the consumerized version of the holiday.
Both of us now are atheists which leads us to celebrating how she's always celebrated the holiday. However I have some misgivings about this. While not religious any any sense any more I still would like to keep some of the original meaning of this season to convey to little Jack as he gets older, but not I'm not really sure how to go about it (hell, as you can see I'm trying really hard not to even say Christmas and just say holiday so I'm clearly conflicted).
I want him to know why this time of year is celebrated, but not necessarily indoctrinate him in any religion. I would like to treat this time of year like we treat the 4th of July. As an event that happened, but not something our family worships like some of his friends and family members might.
I think this is the approach we are most likely to take in the coming years. We will treat Christmas itself like a historical event, without any of the religious trappings that go along with it. I think that if we frame it this way and teach Jack that many people all over the world worship this holiday and why they do so. At the same time I think I'll have to figure out something as to why we don't without going to esoteric for him. Religion is a weighty topic that I think should be breached slowly with little kids. There are many approaches on how to do that, and this time of year helps with that.
Then there's old Santa Clause and how he fits into the mix. There's a whole host of traditions we could follow from Sinterklaas to St. Nick. I think for sanity's sake I'll stick with good ol' Coca-Cola Santa Claus (what you didn't know our current Santa is a product of Coca-Cola marketing? Sorry Virginia). All of the confusion has been take out of him and he's pretty safe. I can also craft a message of giving around him pretty easily that will hopefully stick as Jack gets older. Plus he's the one that's pretty much everywhere anyway.
I want Jack to respect others beliefs without becoming bogged down in them. I want Jack to understand why people all over the world celebrate this time of year and how we can participate in the spirit of the holiday without having to be religious. I want him to be a good boy that will grow into a good man which would be the best present he could give his old man.
So given all of the religious, non religious and cultural holiday offerings, which ones do you and your families follow? Are you traditional? Do you just do what you did when growing up or have you new traditions you are creating? I look forward to hearing about them in comments!
Last Successful Meal
Grilled cheese sandwich
Peas
Fresh blueberries in strawberry, banana, oatmeal yogurt
Current Favorite Reads
My Little Car (Mi Carrito) by Gary Soto
Holler Loudly by Cynthia Leitich Smith
Batman: The Brave and the Bold by J. Torres
Olivia Helps With Christmas by Ian Falconer
Justifying something which is meant to be negative has never struck me as a positive approach to life.
That this is not obvious disturbs me, especially when Tony goes out of his way to say "DISPARAGEMENT OF OTHERS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED." Yet that is disparagement done twice in this topic. Once by him (unintentionally) and a comment. Amazing.
As for the "recovering Catholic" I could see how some Catholics could be offended by the term (I never was when I was a Catholic and don't know any per se that are offended by it now, but I can see it happening). I would like to point out to Jack however that I never said it in my blog post as was implied in his comment. It was simply said in by a commenter in the comments and then the etymology was explained by Kat.
IOW, you did say that in the original article that has since been altered. Perhaps by Annie realizing the implications I pointed out? To me it's glaringly offensive since it mocks the "alcoholic" 12-step parallel as etymology explained, but that was sort of obvious. It is very disturbing to see altered posts (without a note saying this) and then asserting it was never stated. So can we now expect posts be be edited if someone points out a glaring concern? Do I really need to take snapshot of original posts? It's not the editing, it's the lack of noting modifications.
I stand by my statements 100%. The post was modified. This is very disturbing for the reasons that are becoming obvious. You are now arguing over something that I can't prove since I never made a copy of the original. Why should I have to do that? The spirit of the posting is precisely why I pointed out that glaring error. Many people post things that contradict the very things they are advocating.
I'm not arguing over something that you can't prove because it never happened. The commenter put something in quotes...yes, but it wasn't quoting the article. Did the commenter use quotes incorrectly? Yep, probably, but to attack a local father and call his integrity into question is simply wrong. He said above that he never wrote it...and he said that because he didn't.
Posts CAN be modified - by Annie. I've seen this done many times without a comment, but those were typos corrections. I am arguing over something that I can't prove because a MODIFIED post makes it impossible. How do you know the poster wasn't quoting the original? You don't Kat. I remember it differently. You are going a bit too far by calling my integrity into question, which somehow is OK? Somehow the post was modified. He may not even realize it was changed. I think I made that clear. It's not an "attack", just an observation. I recommend a different tact if you wish to continue. Btw, if it was never in the orginal post, why didn't you say so then or anyone else? Just asking the obvious.
Btw, taking an accusatory tone is different from an observing tone.
You need to take responsibility for calling someone's integrity in question.
Now as for Jack and his of topic rant...lets face it, when you loose an election and don't accept that part of the reason you didn't get the votes is because of this sort of discussion then it is inevitable that the rants will continue. And without any 'street cred' most people will just ignore the comments. I find them amusing. Sort of like when someone makes a fool of himself, over, and over, and over, and over again.
You just said "I remember reading that comment and went back to see that, indeed, there was no reference to the term when the comment was made" and yet you said nothing then? Could have been cleared up waaay back then. The term "construction" means that the article had to have an alteration when that term was removed. You think there's a record of post changes? Mmm, that would be interesting if true. Why do you insist making this into calling someone's integrity in question? I only made an observation that the term used to be there. The rest is imagination. Very negative tone.
I didn't mean for this to get carried away as it did. As I noted, I didn't recall for sure and relied instead on my posts from the 6th. If someone had commented then when things were current, none of this would have been an issue.
The question is simple: Is there a record of changes if they are made? Commentor?
Is there a LOG of changes. Meaning if you changed an original post (for whatever reason) after it was published (as has been done) is there a record of either the changes or the original post that we can't see? A LOG is an archive that some sites have that tracks the "history" of changes.
The date is NOT what I'm asking about. I'm asking about the - actual content change - that YOU can see. IOW, the actual record of the text, not just a date. That's the LOG. I'm just curious since Kat implied that you might have a record of the actual changes. That would be useful information. I take it you do not have a LOG of changes in detail. Some may not understand the significance here, but Kat will.
There is even more debate on how accurately the Bible portrays Jesus' life. If you are interested in this topic, you should search for "historicity of Jesus." All that aside, if you are already an atheist, the question of whether Jesus existed, and the question of how good a person Jesus might have been, is not going to lead someone to believe in God. Ghandi existed, and he was a good person, but I am not a Hindu.
How does this factor into Tony's piece? Simple. What you see now is what was published originally. Judging from the comment stream, Kat extrapolated the term (and sentiment) "recovering Catholic" based on her own experiences and how they stand in reflection to Tony's piece. Again simple. There was no post-comment-stream editing. And honestly, there didn't need to be. If Patch editors find a comment, a story, a calendar item or a blog post offensive, they eliminate it. It makes no sense whatsoever to leave it in the comment field after taking it from a story. It's fine to have a discussion about whether the term "recovering Catholic" is offensive to Catholics. (As a member of a Catholic family, I didn't find the term offensive.) What makes less sense is the assertion that an editor would modify the substance of a blog post to obviate a single, inoffensive comment. We publish the comment stream to encourage dialogue, not discourage it. And, obviously, this post got its share. (Mike Lewis, WA Patch Regional Editor)