Freethinker Sunday Sermonette: Merry Christmas

Um, 1968 was FORTY years ago. Doesn't seem that long ago now...

Bill: I originally wrote 40 years and changed it at the last minut to 50.
goes to show you that the first answer you scribble on the test is usually right! :)

thanks.

I don't like it because of the almost obligatory gift giving which results in lots of things made and bought and given that use up energy and resources and often are never used. While we have opted out, we have to remind family over and over - NO GIFTS. It makes them unhappy. But we see no need to be unhappy exchanging gifts so they don't have to be unhappy not exchanging gifts with us. All around I see people not only obligated to buy gifts, but to decorate, cook, clean - and generally exhausted and not all that happy. My childhood Christmas always ended unhappily as we were never grateful enough for my mother. I expect there are as many unhappy miserable Christmas households as happy ones. Not to mention all those who celebrate with booze and then beat up family members or kill people on the roads.

I don't find the need for any holiday to celebrate. But the one day we note is the winter solstice as we happily look forward to longer days and the coming of spring.

To add to my somber mood for this season - Christmas in the trenches - John McCutcheon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9coPzDx6tA

K: Granted. But I was explaining why I like Christmas, not why everyone should. Holidays are very sad and lonely times for a lot of people and I recognize that. They also have bad associations for a lot of people. But as a holiday, I like it for the reasons given. Simple as that.

I have posted Christmas in the Trenches twice here. It is one of my favorite songs for the season. It always brings a tear to Mrs. R's eye, and we play it continuously when we decorate the tree. But I don't think of it as somber but as tremendously hopeful. We all react differently, I guess.

The choice to read the opening lines from the book of Genesis on Christmas Eve from lunar orbit was an inspired one, and the story behind it is told in Robert Zimmerman's book, Genesis: The Story of Apollo 8 : The First Manned Flight to Another World, on pages 196 to 202. Here it is, boiled down:

Julian Scheer, NASA's assistant administrator for public affairs, was apparently the first to identify the question of whether the Apollo 8 astronauts should try to make some sort of memorable statement during their television broadcast after entering lunar orbit on Christmas Eve. Ordinarily, NASA would be averse to any gestures of this kind, but even the hardest-boiled technocrat couldn't deny that a significant statement of some kind was appropriate, under the circumstances. Scheer told mission commander Frank Borman that more people would be listening to his voice than that of any other man in history. Borman was, of course, immersed in the endless details of getting ready for the Apollo 8 mission, which had been an improvised one (due the lunar module not being ready), and so he didn't have much time to devote to this question. Borman asked Scheer for advice, but Scheer begged off: "NASA will not tell you what to say."

Borman then asked his two crewmates, Jim Lovell and Bill Anders, for ideas. Lovell tried, but couldn't come up with anything. Anders, a practicing Catholic, suggested reading the traditional Christmas story (from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke). But Borman, himself an Episcopalian, realized that many viewers of the telecast wouldn't be Christian. He wanted something more inclusive. Borman asked his wife, Susan, for ideas, but this was also without result.

Borman next asked a friend named Simon Bourgin, who was a former newspaperman then working for the United States Information Agency, for help. Bourgin worked hard on the problem for several days but he too came up empty-handed. Although Bourgin had been sworn to secrecy, he nevertheless turned to one of his close friends, Joe Laitin. Laitin was then working for the Bureau of the Budget, but had been a war correspondent and had covered the Nuremberg trials for Reuters. Laitin's initial reaction was, "Piece of cake. No problem."

Laitin, it should be said, didn't immediately look to the Bible or anything else. He tried to write something original, but after wrestling with the problem for many hours, nothing he wrote seemed right. Finally, he thought of using something from the Bible, so he looked in a Gideon Bible he had once swiped from a hotel. He flipped around in the New Testament, but couldn't find anything he liked. He was getting desperate. It was four in the morning. His wife, Christine, woke up and came downstairs to see what on earth her husband was doing. Seeing him in the midst of piles of crumpled-up papers and reading the Bible, she wondered if he had lost his mind.

Christine Laitin had been born in Paris and educated by Catholic nuns in Normandy. During World War II she fought in the Resistance against the Germans. She told her husband, "If you want poetry you're looking in the wrong part of the Bible. You should look in the Old Testament for that." Joe protested that it would be Christ's birthday, but Christine countered, "I don't care whose birthday it is, if you want that kind of language you have to look in the Old Testament." Joe, irritated by now, said, "I wouldn't know where to begin." Christine said, "Why don't you begin at the beginning?" "You mean Genesis?" Joe asked. He looked at the opening words of Genesis and said, "My God, Christine, here it is."

And so the idea was passed back to Bourgin and from him to Borman (Borman never knew until later that the idea hadn't been Bourgin's). Borman thought it was perfect, and the rest is well-known history.

After the public reading, atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair filed suit against NASA to prevent government employees (astronauts) from public prayer in space. The case was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, but no similar religious gestures from space have occurred in the interim, that I am aware of.

Today, by the way, is the fortieth anniversary of the launch of Apollo 8. The launch marked the first time humans had ridden on the mighty Saturn V rocket. I was ten years old at the time.

Revere granted, and I was responding with why I don't like Christmas. As a holiday I don't like it for the reasons given. Simple as that.

Yes Christmas in the Trenches can be seen as hopeful, if you don't think about what comes after that day - which was just 4 mos into the war.

ten: Some of us don't think it was so inspired, but I appreciate the full account (the link to the Daily Mail story has some more details). It certainly didn't include me (I was 26 at the time) nor many like me, nor inspire any similar feelings, even accounting for my non belief. I wouldn't have sued anybody over it, though.

I remember Walter Cronkite announcing that there would be a special transmission from the lunar craft. I started imagining all of the inspirational words that could be summoned to show the value of this startling achievement and to contrast it with our earth-bound past. I thought of how human endeavor could be honored, how curiosity could be shown as a creative force and how dedication to a dream can forge new insights, abilities and strengths.

I remember being bitterly disappointed by the biblical reading. How, I asked, could the purely human effort that appeared to open a new epoch in human history be so thoroughly squelched by such a gutless reliance on ancient superstition?

I remember comforting myself by observing that most people subscribe to such and that most people recognize achievement and are impressed by success and so even the religious must be mightily affected by this soaring victory over gravity and inertia. So, I accepted it as an unavoidable concession to the hive mind.

I was seventeen at the time but the intervening years have not fully attenuated my disappointment.

Regardless, Merry Christmas to all! May your days lengthen and the sun grow warm on your face.

Revere, I think it was inspired to use a reference that was meaningful to any adherent of an Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), as opposed to the "obvious" thing, which would have been some overtly Christian reference. And I would think that even you would admit that this gesture of greater inclusiveness is helpful.

Admittedly, atheists can choose to feel excluded, if they are so inclined, but I know atheists who nevertheless appreciated the use of a creation myth (although some may have preferred, say, an American Indian creation myth) on the occasion of mankind's first foray beyond its cradle - the earth - and did not thereby feel that their scientific "manhood" had been questioned. For God's sake, Revere. Do you really think the astronauts on that occasion should have used something like your words: "We are just another species temporarily crawling around on the surface of a hunk of rock whirling about a minor star." That's inspiring, alright.

Surely, the ultimate meaning of that iconographic image is that a man snapped the shutter on the camera. If an unmanned probe with an automated camera had taken it, it would not have had anything like the same impact or meaning. Religion or lack thereof is no indicator of whether someone thinks mankind has any business venturing beyond our cradle. Most think we have no such business, and that all such goings-on are a prodigal waste of time and resources. I find such thinking understandable, but ultimately short-sighted (large near-earth objects, anyone?), and curiously unscientific. Where's the sense of adventure? Is there none of this in science anymore?

Anyway, the United States probably would not have gone to the moon if the Russians hadn't shown signs of wanting to go there first. No Russians, no Apollo program. The real question then becomes: Why did the Russians want to go? What was it about their national psyche, if you will, that led them to consider such a thing? The real impetus for space travel in Russia was largely pre-revolutionary (Fyodorov, Tsiolkovsky, and the rest). Propoganda notwithstanding, the communist leaders were much more interested in ICBMs than space rockets. Korolev, the genius behind the Soviet space program, who also spent hard time in a gulag, had to fight hard for his ideas. Khrushchev went along with Korolev's ideas because he saw their immense propoganda value against the West.

ten: I don't find Genesis inspiring in the least, but I certainly wasn't suggesting my words as a substitute. I don't care much one way or another what the astronauts said. Very few people remember it (I was extremely interested in space exploration at that time and I followed it avidly and didn't remember they quoted Genesis). That was a side issue in a post which was about why an atheist liked Xmas. But I did appreciate the detail you provided for readers. That never hurts, whatever one thinks.

Your point about the picture being taken by a human is interesting because it never occurred to me that was important. It wasn't to me. It was that the picture was real that made a difference to me. It showed me the planet I lived on and the message to me -- which I will repeat I consider a great comfort now that I am much closer to the end of my life than the beginning -- was as I reported it. But people see these things differently.

Christmas is pretty awesome, all things considered. And hey -- there are much worse things to believe in.

Revere, thanks for appreciating the detail I provided. I appreciate your appreciating it. We could argue about how many people remember the Genesis reading on Apollo 8. I think more remember it than you're willing to acknowledge.

Anyway, as to your point about the realness of the picture being more important than the fact that a human took it: It might interest you to know that there were/are pictures of the earth taken by unmanned lunar probes before Apollo 8. You haven't seen them, have you? Try to even find them anywhere (I can't). Think about why that is.

The earth in the picture certainly is real, and that's important, but you shouldn't ignore the fact that a human being took the picture. Both facts are important - not just one.

ten: I guess I should be more precise. I meant that I didn't remember the Genesis connection. I don't have any idea how many people do. Likewise, the fact that it was taken by a human wasn't important to me. You make the (excellent) point that the iconic picture was taken by a human and that might account for its being so prevalent. I think that's a very plausible explanation. It never occurred to me.

Merry Christmas, dude!

Thank you kindly, Tovarshch PP (physioprof is a scibling who blogs at physioprof.com and scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey.)

To the "Genesis" naysayers, I would ask, what memorable saying would you have used if you were in Borman's shoes and had to say something on that occasion?

Now I take the point that perhaps nothing at all should have been said, that the moment should have passed completely unnoticed and unacknowledged. Just read the dials and gauges, and perhaps mention an occasional crater passing by the window.

(I suppose by this logic, there was no reason, for example, for Lincoln to give the Gettysburg Address. Did Gettysburg really need this memorable annotation? Of what actual use was it? Pshaw. Frivolous window dressing.)

But for the moment, let's lay aside such severe scientific asceticism, and assume that NASA had more-or-less ordered you to say something on the occasion.

What would you say in Borman's place? I suspect there are many suitable quotations or passages. "Piece of cake," right? So to whom would you look? Descartes? Bacon? Einstein? Which saying or sayings? I'm quite serious - I'm not being facetious.

For that matter, what do you suppose the Soviet cosmonauts would have said, if they have orbited the moon before we did? Something from Lenin? Tsiolkovsky? The best, in my opinion, would have been something from Kondratyuk, since he was the first person to accurately foretell the means and method by which we would go to the moon.

(The Russians very nearly did it, by the way. They had a mission scheduled that would have beaten Apollo 8 by month or so, but they called it off because they thought it was too risky.)

And now I'll shut up, since I suspect that none of you care a whit about any of this...

ten: You are right that it's not a matter of much substance for me, but you asked a serious question so it deserves as thoughtful an answer as I can give on the spur of the moment. It seems that only two sources were considered, either something original or something from the Bible (a book to which a minority of world's population adheres, I might add). So if you are going to confine yourself to the Bible, then Genesis seems appropriate.

If it were me I think I would have opted for something spontaneous and heartfelt like, "What a beautiful sight. From this distance you have to believe we are more alike than different. May the world be at peace, soon." Not eloquent but from the heart.

But it's not a big deal for me. I don't object strenuously to what was done, although I think it was thoughtlessly sectarian, not inspiring. If they were Buddhists we'd have gotten something from the sayings of the Buddha, many of which I am sure are inspiring to Buddhists. OK with me, either way. But it doesn't include me.

tenpenny: Enjoyed what you wrote and it was not lost in the vastness of the net.

As far as "Christmas" goes it's not the commercialization that bothers me so much anymore, it's that the true and original concept of the season has been lost. I don't doubt that Jesus the man walked the earth and sincerely tried to convey the goodness that exists in all of us and to build on that goodness and make it real. What gets my goat more often than not is the misinterpretations of the bible.

Lea (and others)
If it is the commercialization that gets your goat, then let heifer international (www.heifer.org) give that goat to someone who needs it.
Wishing you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Solstice or whatever you choose to celebrate. Cheers.
Man.of.Misery

Hey, it's a good thing we just happen to be the right distance from the sun to give us a temperature not too hot or cold for us.

Despite this, it's also a good thing that we are born in a period where the planet is not in an ice age. Perhaps mans CO 2 has something to do with that?.

It's a good thing our planet has a breathable atmosphere, and is not like Mars (no atmposhere) or Saturn (toxic brew).

The universe is 13 billion years old and despite being 4 billion years old, Earth has been home to civilized man for only 6000 years, although our species perhaps is 60,000 years old. Funny how we came to be in the middle of an ice age, but I guess Africa or wherever we originated from was not so cold.

At this location in space, man as a species has existed in the universe for only 1/200,000 of the time, and has been
civilized for only 1/2,000,000 of the time. Creationism sure is slow. If one were to measure the volume of space occupied by intelligent life by the volume of the universe as a whole, well, there would be a whole lot of zeros in the denominator.

Our importance in the grand scheme of things is unlikely to be great, if there is indeed a creator or any scheme. Perhaps we are simply an accident, a product of the dice being rolled so many times life is created and lasts a finite amount of time in a given location once in awhile, with intelligent life being even a greater rarity. Surprising when it happens, but insignificant.

So looking at man today as just another species occupying a hunk of rock which happens to be revolving around the sun is, well, interesting. So says the ants building antholes near the pyramids.

But the giving of gifts, even if profitable for some, and since when is profit making considered an evil, is hardly a bad thing. That this is even possible in this vast universe at this moment in time surely must give one pause for thought.

That it is only the product of a series of random events following a Big Bang billions of years ago is an interesting hypothesis. Believing it with any certitude is a matter of faith.

So to those who believe in Jesus, Mithra (thats whose birthday dec 25 is, Jesus was born in the fall) or that we are the product of random meaningless events. Merry Xmas.

Surely, the ultimate meaning of that iconographic image is that a man snapped the shutter on the camera. If an unmanned probe with an automated camera had taken it, it would not have had anything like the same impact or meaning.

oh, i'm not sure; i think a lot depends on how it's explained. Carl Sagan's "pale blue dot" essay always manages to choke me up, to the point where his sentiments have become indelibly linked in my mind to the image he describes. even though that's not a particularly good photo, at that.

I think the photo is iconic mainly because it is an extremely good photo compared to the previous robotic ones. It is in color, has a good composition, and doesn't have a lot of transmission or image artifacts like most of the robotic images from that timeframe do. If a robotic probe had taken a similar-quality photo some time earlier, it might have become the standard 'Earthrise' photo instead.

While looking through google I saw this in regards to my father, the late Joe Laitin. That story about my mother Christine is indeed not only true but very typical of my parents' relationship. Whether it was Genesis or something else, it was the timing that was so amazing. I miss them both.

Sigrid Laitin