Chicago’s Wary Magistrates
The biggest story of the early “holi-day” season? No, not at all. chicagotribune.com — nativity story It is a story relating to an increasingly familiar theme, actually: No, says the Chicago mayor’s special events office, New Line Media cannot advertise their film Nativity Story at the Christkindlmarket in Chicago. Risks being preferential to one “faith,” offensive to non-Christians. Hmmm. Could be!
~ Well, the very idea of the Incarnation, and by extension the death, burial, and resurrection of the God-Man Messiah Jesus could be offensive to some folks. Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus did have a thing or two to say about that, so why all the surprise? Christmas — once we cut through all the cultural and commercial excelsior — implies a great deal some folk don’t want to talk about, no, not at all.
~ Chicago’s wary magistracy can do what it wants, of course, in order to be most responsible and, hopefully, to avoid the aggravations of criticism, complaint, yea, even conflict and undesirable media attention, while facilitating what is at least as much a consciously public and commercial festival of the quasi-holy-day season.
~ Meanwhile most folk who have anything to do with the actual “Christ celebration” will do so apart from the most-public-square, that is, in their Christ-ian congregations and in their homes. Christians do, after all, distinguish between the congregation-as-body-of-Christ and the public arena as something without and separate from the Church. Though I think Christians should, properly, be redemptively present in our society, serving the greater public good, and doing so in exceptional ways.
~ Still, isn’t it disappointing that the public square preaches equanimity, brotherhood, toleration, yet there is such a bent to restriction for the common good? Seems paradoxical. Yet, also paradoxically, here is yet another reminder that in matters of religion the magistrates should best have no involvement, as is usually the case with the churches, synagogues, and mosques. Yet government in this case did not hesitate to protect against a perceived religious incursion into the “public” sphere. Has Chicago overstepped? Was it an issue, really?
~ What did Chicago prohibit? Most obviously, a film display — no doubt impressively developed, as on the web site — for advertising purposes. In the Christkindlmarket. If the film were not about the Nativity of Christ, there would be no issue. Do you agree?
November 28th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Good points. In the midst of the Christian complaints about the secular “war on Christmas,” I should hope we wouldn’t forget the challenge of the symbols we defend. “Sweet little Jesus boy” was quite more than that.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
This is exactly why I wouldn’t wish to be the “government.” Of course my beliefs and opinions would influence my decisions…otherwise, why wouldn’t we just rule out anything that could be offensive to anyone in the slightest way? There is no collectively “fair” way to go about it, really €” you could go round and round in circles all day €” and I guess that’s why our individual lives, and what we promote and the decisions we make, matter so much.