Washington, D.C. buses will be sporting the question, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake" this holiday season. This is a new ad campaign from the American Humanist Association.

The vast majority of Americans claim to be Christians, so this is obviously an attack on Christianity. (As if the timing didn't make that painfully apparent.)

Ok, on one hand, I would say that it is the AHA's money. If they want to spend $40,000 to purchase themselves a special place in hell, that's their business. But, at the same time, I have to wonder if the Washington buses would have sported an anti-homosexuality message or an anti-abortion message if purchased from the coffers of the Southern Baptist Convention or the local Roman Catholic diocese? After all, that's business, right?

But I do wonder what the Church's response will be? I'm sure one campaign will be to remind everyone of the "true meaning of Christmas." But, what is that exactly? Winter Solstice? The attempt of Pope Julius to incorporate the pagan Saturnalia festival into the Church calendar in 432 AD? Oliver Cromwell canceled Christmas when he and the Puritans took over England. (Captain John Smith was downing eggnog over in Jamestown in 1607, though). It was even outlawed in Boston from 1659 to 1681 - not by secular humanists, but by the pilgrims. Christmas was considered an English custom, so it was ignored by Congress after the American Revolution. Yep, they were actually in session on December 25th of 1789. It wasn't a federal holiday until 1870. Well, I doubt any of those are what is meant by the "true meaning of Christmas."

The "traditional" Christmas didn't start until 1819, when Washington Irving wrote The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon, gent. In these stories, Irving invented some "holiday traditions" and showed a squire celebrating them in his home with the local peasants. Of course, the best loved tale of "traditional" Christmas is A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens from 1843.

But, hey, don't think I'm a bah-hum-bugger myself. I've actually broken the cardinal rule at our house of not listening to Christmas music until after Thanksgiving dinner. I'm already listening. Of course, I've tried to explain to my wife that at my advanced age, time flies so much faster that I only experience the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas as if it were one week. So I have to start listening early to get in all 29 days of Christmas music. (And I really like the song "Christmas Cookies" by George Strait this year.)

And another favorite tactic is the ever popular boycott. Sometimes I think the church's official battle plan is retreat. Of course, the plan is not the ingenious strategy of retreating so the enemy will follow you as you wait in ambush. No, the Church just retreats again and again. As Bret Maverick said, "He who fights and runs away, lives to run another day." Yes, I'm sure that's what Jesus meant by being salt and light. Retreat from the culture and maintain a social impact of ZERO.

I think the real question here is, how can anyone be "good for goodness' sake"? How do you define goodness? Is there a goodness for you and a different goodness for me? How can I measure your goodness by my standard of goodness? What if I believe that eating meat is good, but you believe that killing animals to eat them is morally reprehensible? What if I believe that a baby is a blessing, but you believe that a baby is at best a choice and at worst a punishment? How could any law ever be established if no one could agree to it? Relativism only leads to chaos.

Oddly enough, the ad seems to imply that there is a general goodness to which we should all subscribe. Well, I'm sure there are things which all human beings can agree are absolute. I think we can all agree that torture is evil. (Presidential administrations and the CIA aside, of course. But they are the State and morality has never applied to the State, so they don't count as human beings.) Maybe we could limit it to just torturing children.

But if torturing children is absolutely evil, then that, at least, is one moral absolute. I can't just walk down the street, pull out a gun, and shoot someone at random. I think we proletarians can agree to that as well. So there are absolutes that exist outside our individual opinions.

Well, now we have a real problem with the ad, don't we? The sign admits there is a goodness that exists. This goodness that exists is outside individual opinions. This goodness is not a physical thing. It is not a rock or a tree. It is certainly not star stuff. You can't taste it, smell it, or scratch it. The ad said we should do it for "goodness" sake, but goodness cannot be proven empirically. Thus, by saying we should be "good for goodness' sake", they have disavowed materialism and strict empiricism!

So the bus ad proves that you can believe in something that you cannot see.

But what is the origin of the "goodness"? Did it just accidentally pop into existence? If so, how can it apply to you? If goodness is just an accident, how can it matter if you are good or not? Is there some punishment or reward that accidentally occurred simultaneously with the accidental occurrence of the "goodness"?

The only other option is that Someone made the "goodness." If Someone made the "goodness," then that Someone can reward you for being good or punish you for not being good. Is this Someone the God of Christianity?

Well, we know that this Someone could not be one of the millions of gods of Hinduism, because they make no distinction between good and evil.

It can't be atheism, because there is no Someone in atheism.

It can't be agnosticism, because there might not be Someone in agnosticism.

So, have a Merry Christmas. And think long and hard about where that goodness might come from and what that implies to you.