Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

About Nothing

The invented Seinfeld winter holiday Festivus, like the late Christopher Hitchens, demands a religion-like dogma  around nonbelief

Print Email
Yarmulke with Happy Festivus embroidery. (DRosenbach/Wikipedia)

There is no more satisfying cri de coeur for an atheist than to expose a person of faith as a charlatan.

I was getting ready to sink into a column about the “Festivus” episode of Seinfeld—in which Jerry and the gang observe a holiday invented by George’s father and dedicated to celebrating all that is contentious and irking about the holiday season—to illustrate this theme when the Net started humming with news of Christopher Hitchens’ death, and I was moved to liberally pour myself a glass of rye whiskey and toast the deceased. Like so many of Hitchens’ eulogizers, I mumbled to myself that while I disagreed with many of his convictions, his uncommon ability to use his intellect as a scalpel rather than a hammer when arguing a point, to paraphrase Harry Shearer, made him worthy of begrudging respect.

I downed the rest of my drink, poured myself another, and watched as Jerry Seinfeld and the gang reveled in the Spartan holiday of Festivus and its fabricated traditions—the aluminum pole, the feats of strength, the airing of grievances. But the mind wandered back to Hitchens; seeking distraction, I reached for my copy of his atheist writ, God Is Not Great. Here, to choose but one passage at random, is what it has to say about religion’s metaphysical claims: “One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge.”

It wasn’t just the assertion that the educated and evolved mind had no recourse but to abandon faith and seek instead some steelier view of life that made me angry. Nor was it just the personal slight I felt as someone who, without reservations or remorse, worships a mighty god. These are both rational arguments, and they had little to do with the fury frolicking in my gut; what provoked my demons to dance was the realization—by no means new, but startling each time—that Hitchens’ bluster was itself every bit as dogmatic.

Consider, for example, his now-famous televised tirade on the occasion of Jerry Falwell’s passing: The accent is Balliol, the cadence is measured, but the rhetoric is timeless American fire and brimstone. Squint your eyes just so, and it’s easy enough to imagine that Hitchens is seated not in Anderson Cooper’s studio but in a tent revival somewhere, warning sinners of the wrath of the vengeful god of reason.

Hitchens, of course, isn’t the first atheist to embrace the absence of divinity as an article of faith. As today marks the first night of the Festival of Lights, let us get into the holiday spirit with a Hanukkah-themed poem, titled “We Are Carrying Torches.” Written in the early 1930s by Aharon Ze’ev—a poet who would eventually become the Israel Defense Forces’ first chief education officer—the poem riffs on the holiday’s miraculous mythology to make a stark statement against faith. “No miracle happened to us, we found no can of oil,” it reads. “We quarried the rock until we bled. Let there be light!”

The subtext isn’t hard to decipher. A proud Zionist and nonbeliever, Ze’ev believed it was men, not God, who charted the course of human events. The Jewish state shares his sentiment—the poem, set to music, is sung each year in the official national ceremony celebrating Israel’s Independence Day. And yet, like Hitchens’ protestations, Ze’ev’s poem, too, is just another gospel—the only language Ze’ev had to assert man’s existential freedom is the language of that good old religion and the imagery of Hanukkah. The Marxist Zionist atheist Ber Borochov followed a similar path when he denounced God but did so appropriating the Haggadah and celebrating its Wicked Son as a paragon of secular skepticism.

Seinfeld pulls off a similar trick. Just as atheism is really religion in darker shades, the show about nothing is really a show about something grim. Nowhere is this more evident than in the “Festivus” episode, which begins with the Hanukkah party of a dentist who converted to Judaism for the jokes, proceeds with a scheme to replace holiday gifts with contributions to fictitious charities, and ends with the dour holiday for the rest of us. That all these plot lines are concerned with religion is not accidental. Seinfeld’s Manhattan is far from a cosmopolitan playground: It is a little island crammed with nasty little people who wave their empty pieties around like pointy sticks, eager to injure each other.

Like Hitchens and the early Zionists, Seinfeld, too, took pride in its wit and irreverence in exposing the fraudulent fools who hide behind religion’s tall walls. Hitchens had Falwell; Jerry has Tim Whatley, the dentist whose reasoning for converting to Judaism is dubious and whose gift-giving practices are Madoff-esque. That Falwell and Whatley were indeed charlatans—I fully subscribe to Hitchens’ assessment of the man who blamed Sept. 11 on gays and the ACLU—matters little. What matters is what we’re left with after the laugh track dies down. And what we’re left with is Festivus.

Now a burgeoning holiday—House Minority Leader Eric Cantor celebrates it with a fundraiser, and former Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle placed an aluminum pole in the executive mansion—Festivus is the apex of a particular brand of secular humanism that replicated the structures of religion but replaced magic with mirth and called it a triumph of the enlightened spirit. G.K. Chesterton—according to Ian McEwan, the subject of Hitchens’ last piece—warned against such phenomena when he railed in his Orthodoxy against the modern intellectual urge to convert the stirrings and mysteries of religion into easy sentiments, jokes, or clichés. He would surely have been appalled to see “tikkun olam,” say, turn from a specifically theological tenet to a worn-out catchphrase, indistinguishable from any other sort of feel-good charity and, without its divine underpinnings, meaningless. And he would, most likely, have been dismayed to see the moronic Festivus, a fabrication that robs ritual of its majesty, reduces it to a punch line, and calls the truth that which is merely a failure of the imagination.

Seinfeld, of course, is a sitcom, and as such is not obligated to do much more than amuse. But its cultural prevalence indicates that its views are widely shared and that, for many, Festivus is the only feasible alternative to Falwell; the choice is between mindless fundamentalism and equally mindless nihilism.

It’s a sad worldview. It’s also profoundly un-Jewish. When faced with the breakdown of religion—which Jews had to do a month after the inception of their organized faith, when those congregated at the foothills of Mount Sinai built themselves a Golden Calf—we do not mock or reject but lament.

Leonard Cohen, the closest thing we have to a prophet and a source of comfort to Hitchens in his final months, captured this obligation perfectly. “As I grew older,” Cohen wrote, “I understood that instructions came with this voice. And the instructions were these: … Never to lament casually. And if one is to express the great inevitable defeat that awaits us all, it must be done within the strict confines of dignity and beauty.”

To which we all, those who believe in God and those who do not and those for whom the question is inconsequential, should respond: Hallelujah.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

Great article–Hag Sameach

Lawrence says:

Interesting piece, but also falls victim to some of the sanctimony it purports to decry. It wasn’t Seinfeld or Hitchens that reduced the holidays to a joke, it was the relentless commercialism and sentimentality of this time of year. Festivus isn’t the opposite of Falwell but of the phony sentimentality that bombards all of us for nearly two months. Just like any good satire, Seinfeld ridicules the easy secular humanists (including their turn to platitudes) just as much as it does the demagogues. Grim, perhaps, but surely more fair than what’s indicated here.

JCarpenter says:

Hallelujah indeed; good article. If only folks could promote peace on earth good will to men, and celebrate the Light, 24/7, 365.

Rob Greenstein says:

Frankly, your essay is cheap and insulting to the memory of a great intellect so recently passed. Did you feel so threatened and confused by his clear view of reality that you couldn’t wait to reassert your view based on pure conjecture and fantasy, without one shred of evidence ever. As typical of the literature published by fanatics, ill informed opinion is presented as fact. Who are you to decide what is Jewish or un-Jewish. By the way, I’ve never actually heard a Jew say “un-Jewish.”
Who the heck refers to commercial songwriter as a prophet? Good grief! Get an education. Try Balliol, you seem envious.

Great great piece. So funny, I just watched this episode the other night on – I had not seen it before.

Good article!

Disappointing article. Instead of tracing the ways behaviors and claims to “belief” are picked-out and identified as “religious” and the way such categories become porous and able to be transgressed when we look at these things critically for a while, you get sanctimonious and self-absorbed with no clear argument or reasoned train of thought. This article could have been about human behavior and the tyranny of taxonomy; it could have been about the human energies which shape and direct our behaviors and their classifications.

Instead, comments like calling Cohen a prophet and your shot across the bow to progressive Jews re: tikkun olam do absolutely nothing, nor do you expose the underpinnings of Hitchen’s (or anyone else’s) thought. The conclusions you could have reached are so obvious and interesting that it is clear why you didn’t: you couldn’t have. Think a little harder next time (and forget the cutesie language).

Bennett Muraskin says:

Festivus is for fun, for God’s sake! Lighten up, Liel.

How about reviving the pagan holiday of winter solstice??? That would really give Liel a knipshn.

For Jews Chanukah poses its own problems. Those Macabbees were the religious fundamentalists of their day.

Though Mr. Leibovitz repeatedly calls Hitchens dogmatic, he never offer clear cause for why others should agree with him on this. Sadly, this article is little more than an effort in name calling.

infantryman says:

I’m not sure the author read ‘god is not Great” very closely, as this paragraph is near the beginning.

“Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”

Atheism (or anti-theism, as Hitchens professed) is not dogma.

Look, I’m not usually one to defend him, but if you all need Leibovitz to explain why the New Atheism is simply a dogmatic reversal to the very things they criticize, then you need to get out more. I won’t address it here; there are loads of articles on the internet.

But to criticize Liel, I do think he has a slight misreading of the early Zionists; they weren’t irrelgious (they can’t be; Judaism isn’t a religion), but just non-spiritual. There’s no point to Zionism, in my opinion, if you have no respect for the Tanakah and Jewish “religious” (e.g. national) history. So their comparisons to Hitchens don’t really play out. Not sure why he mentioned them.

Gibson Block says:

Its possible that the stories conveyed by religions don’t always serve as suitable vessels for the the spiritual and idealistic impulses common to everyone. But for so much of history they have been imposed. Now it’s easy to take shots at them people (justifiably) will.

Beatrix says:

Good, thoughtful article. I would consider the mystical experience to be the source of religion, but I know others disagree.

One thing I’ve noticed about atheists, though, is that they tend to be very manipulative. Because they don’t believe someone or something else is pulling the strings, they have to pull people’s strings themselves. Woody Allen even became a director.

And Judaism isn’t a religion?

When it’s cold outside, those of us who are uninterested in religion do like to enjoy ourselves, take some time with our families, and eat some ham. Festivus is as good a name for the occasion as anything else; no need to interpret it as evidence of stalwart faith in the non-existence of Wotan, or whoever it is we’re supposed to be worshipping this time of year.

Travener says:

That’s a lot of intellectual blathering and bloviating over what is, after all, merely a TV show.

And atheism is not the “dark side” of anything. I’m an atheist not because I hate religion or have no sense of the miraculous — nor do I have an anti-religion agenda like Hitchens — but because I’m an educated, rational person who believes in science.

Why is atheism “really religion in darker shades”?
If one declines to believe in a transcendent deity, how, exactly, does that equate to “religion”, even if it’s in “darker shades?”
Religion is about salvation through belief in the transcendent deity. If one has no belief in salvation at all, then one in not religious at all.
Do atheists become manipulative? Maybe. Do religious believers become manipulative? Maybe. Is being manipulative somehow an analysis of atheism or belief? Probably not, since belief in salvation, or not, has nothing to do at all with this unpleasant character trait.
When a comic artist becomes a director to satisfy his artistic urges it shows the strength of artistic urges, not being manipulative. A film director is manipulative just as a novelist or a poet or a photographer is. They’re artists.
Cohen is no prophet but he is a poet. He’s a poet because he can mix religious imagery with the urban imagery of sex and drugs. Who knows if he’s a believer. Does it matter?


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

About Nothing

The invented Seinfeld winter holiday Festivus, like the late Christopher Hitchens, demands a religion-like dogma  around nonbelief

More on Tablet:

Why the Teenage Girls of Europe Are Joining ISIS

By Lee Smith — Because they want the same things that teenage boys want: a strong sense of meaning and purpose