“Christmas is being crucified by white, middle-class do-gooders”
Jeff Randall: Daily Telegraph 8/12/06
Read the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/12/08/do0801.xml
1. Why does Randall throw away most of his Christmas cards?
In paragraph 3, Randall explains that many cards that he receives are not Christmas cards at all because they contain no Christian images.
In paragraph 6, he explains that his gesture is a “...swipe at those who would prefer to abolish Christmas altogether, in case it offends ‘minorities’...”
2. What, in the context of this article, is the “C- Word” and why, according to Randall, will “Happy Holidays” simply not do?
The “C_ Word” (obviously) is “Christmas”. Randall takes the view that messages such as “Happy Holidays” and “Season’s Greetings” are unacceptable because they remove the Christianity from Christmas.
3. Why might some people suppose that Randall has become “a weirdo fundamentalist”?
Presumably, Randall is concerned that some may dismiss his argument as that of a religious extremist because he objects to the secularisation of a Christian festival.
4. If Randall is “somewhere between an agnostic and a mild believer”, why is he so concerned about the secularisation of Christmas?
In paragraph 5, Randall argues that, even though many people are not religious these days, they still ought to “respect a faith that still underpins traditional British values and institutions...”
5. Examine paragraphs 5 and 14. What does Randall mean by the word “minority”? How does the definition of this word affect his argument?
In his first usage, Randall takes “minorities” to mean racial and religious minorities, such as Hindus, Jews and Muslims. When we use the word “minority” in this context, we are usually referring to a vulnerable group who might be the victims of prejudice and discrimination rather than simply a group that represents less than 50% of the population.
In the next sentence, Randall refers to Christians as a minority because only 1 in 15 Britons go to church on Sundays. It could be said that he is committing the fallacy of equivocation here, in changing the meaning of the word. Most people would not regard Christians as a vulnerable minority, even though they are arguably a numerical minority, because, as Randall said, Christianity still underpins traditional British values and institutions.
In paragraph 14, Randall attacks the diversity champions, equality campaigners and human rights activists who have become a “tyrannical minority”. Here, Randall is making an argument from democratic principles. He believes that this group do not have the support of the majority of the population and that their views should, therefore, not dominate our thinking.
It could be argued that the author is being inconsistent in saying that the middle-class do-gooders should be ignored because they are a minority and then saying that Christians are also a minority.
6. In paragraphs 4 and 5, what examples are there of the author attacking a “straw man” by distorting the views of his opponents?
In paragraph 4, the author protests against those “...who seem hell bent on turning Christianity into a crime.”
In paragraph 5, the author says that he is taking a swipe against “...those who would prefer to abolish Christmas altogether...”
Nobody is seriously suggesting that Christianity should be made illegal, or that Christmas should be abolished and the author almost certainly knows this. His “straw man” tactic is to exaggerate the view of his opponents to make it easier to attack.
7. The “ad hominem” flaw occurs when an author makes an irrelevant personal attack as a substitute for addressing his opponent’s argument. What examples of the ad hominem flaw can be found in paragraph 7?
The author refers to councillors in Birmingham who have tried to rebrand Christmas in favour of something more multicultural. The author does not address this argument and simply responds that “...third rate minds produce only third rate ideas.” The fallacy occurs because the author does not explain why the idea is “third rate.”
8. What reasons might the Birmingham councillors have for wanting to rebrand Christmas as “Winterval”?
Birmingham is an extremely multicultural city, yet local
taxes pay for Christmas decorations in the city. Muslim and Sikh councillors
might argue that, if Muslim and Sikh ratepayers are asked to fund the
decorations, there should be no religious bias. In such a multi-ethnic
community, it might be more politically acceptable for the city to put up
decorations celebrating a secular mid-winter festival. This does not mean, of
course, that there is any attempt to “abolish Christmas” or to outlaw religious
observance. A parallel could be drawn with the principle of separation of
church and state in the United States.
9. What is the relevance to the author’s argument of the assertions that Santa’s sleighs now need seat belts and that mince pies need to be risk assessed before being given to children?
The author is comparing things that are not entirely similar. The author claims that many employers refuse to allow Christmas decorations because they fear being sued by their ethnic minority employees. These employees may be able to sue, if the employer operates a discriminatory policy of allowing decorations to celebrate Christian festivals but not those of other faiths.
There is some similarity with health and safety guidelines, in that they are usually put in place out of fear of litigation, should someone be injured. Nevertheless, health and safety guidelines are not completely relevant to the author’s argument because they are concerned with personal injury rather than discrimination.
10. How convincing is the “slippery slope” suggested by the author in paragraph 9? What assumptions does the author make about Sir Fred Goodwin’s career?
It is common for employers to implement health and safety rules to avoid litigation from employees and customers. The author believes that such rules are “timid”. He suggests that, if Sir Fred Goodwin (Chief Executive of Royal Bank of Scotland) was this over-cautious, the RBS “would still be using an abacus”. The author is clearly exaggerating for effect.
The author must assume that the Royal Bank of Scotland has been successful because Sir Fred Goodwin is a risk-taker rather than a “timid” businessman.
The author is also assuming that the bank’s timid policy on Christmas decorations is not typical of its general approach to business.
11. How useful is the evidence (in paragraph 10) about the owner of Randall’s local curry house and the hotel in Dubai?
The examples are of Muslims who are apparently not offended by Christmas. The evidence is weak because:
(i) Randall has committed a hasty generalisation (a generalisation from a limited sample). He takes one curry house owner and one Dubai hotel and then makes a judgement about ethnic minorities generally.
(ii) Randall gives two examples of Muslim responses and then generalises to Jews and Hindus (first sentence of paragraph 11).
(iii) The examples are not wholly relevant because the
hotel and the curry house owner are both making money out of Randall. It is
possible that they are being accommodating to Randall because he is their
customer. This does not automatically mean that they approve of, for example,
government or council funded Christmas decorations.
12. According to the author’s reasoning (in paragraph 11), what are the aims of the “white, middle-class do-gooders”?
The author believes that this group are:
(i) Attempting to “force” their ethical code on the rest of society.
(ii) They “hold a flag for an atheist Britain.”
(iii) They seek to remove all traces of Christianity from public life.
13. What is the impact of the point made by the contributor to the Telegraph’s Letters page (paragraph 13)?
The letter is presumably suggesting that there is hypocrisy in being offended by Christmas and yet being prepared to accept paid leave over the Christmas period.
Is it hypocritical? That would depend on exactly what people are offended by. The “white, middle-class do-gooders”, as described by the author, seem to be in favour of a secularisation of Christmas rather than the abolition of the holiday.
14. If Randall’s article is an argument, what is its conclusion?
Randall’s argument is about identifying who is responsible for attempts to secularise Christmas. The best statement of the conclusion might be in the middle of paragraph 11: “The demons in this horror story of crucifying Christmas are white, middle-class do-gooders whose assumption of a superior morality is as disgraceful as it is disgusting”.
15. What evidence has the author offered in support of his conclusion?
There are a couple of intermediate conclusions, such as the author’s judgement that there is a “...rising tide of hatred against those who adhere to biblical values.” Evidence in support of this intermediate conclusion is:
Another intermediate conclusion is the author’s view that Christmas should be a Christian festival. His reasons are:
The evidence for the author’s overall conclusion is, however, extremely weak.
The “...ghastly councillors, such as those in Birmingham...” prove very little because there is no evidence that these councillors are white or middle-class.
The firms that ban Christmas decorations for fear of litigation prove even less because, as Randall says, their motivation is a fear of litigation, rather than an attempt to force their ethical code on the rest of society.
The only relevant evidence offered by Randall to support his conclusion is: