First, a H/T to Ophelia Benson.
Now, this piece by Mark Vernon rants about the "hysteria" surrounding Christmas this time round. What I find most obtuse here is that Vernon appears to have no idea of the meaning of the word "hysterical". He calls Dawkins an "hysterical" writer, when the exact opposite is true: Dawkins writes in a wry, measured way. He is usually quietly funny, and even the most (supposedly) extreme views that he puts forward are, in most cases, carefully qualified. Yes, he can sometimes be snarky or passionate, but "hysterical" is about the last word that can be applied to him by anyone who displays sufficient patience and fairness to read his work at length and with some objectivity. If Vernon thinks Dawkins is hysterical in tone, then he's tone deaf.
The trouble is that the other examples given by Vernon don't seem like examples of hysteria, either. There's no hysteria involved in businesse sending out cards to clients. It may be crass, hypocritical, or any number of other things. In some cases, where a business is small and has a base of committed customers who are largely known to the proprietor it may be a genuine expression of good will. But whatever it is, it's not hysterical.
Nor is it an example of hysteria if a church sends out Advent calendars. I'm as critical of the churches as anyone, but they are entitled to do what they do without being accused of "hysteria" on each occasion. Let's save the accusations of religious hysteria for genuine examples of the phenomenon (it's not as if examples are lacking, but printing Advent calendars doesn't count).
Perhaps Vernon means something like "frenetic" or "frenzied", or even just "busy" or "active". Certainly, there's a lot of activity around Christmas time, but activity is hardly the same as hysteria. Activity can be calm and controlled. Even when it becomes intense, focused, or urgent, that is not the same as hysteria. Even frenzy is not the same as hysteria, but the examples don't even seem like activity that's especially frenzied. Note: words actually do have meanings.
In fairness to Vernon, he offers a definition of "hysterical" as meaning something like "falsely active". But I don't see anything of the kind in Dawkins' writing. Nor do I see it in churches producing Advent calendars. He has his slightly unusual definition, but he seems to forget about it throughout.
My complaint about this piece is partly its unfairness in adding yet again to the meme that there's something over the top about Dawkins' ongoing critique of religion - a meme like that becomes "true" in the public imagination if it's repeated often enough, as it most certainly is. Once again - surprise ! surprise! - Dawkins is being treated unfairly. But it's partly, also, the sheer journalistic laziness and sloppiness involved in taking several disparate phenomena, slapping the sensationalist (dare I say "hysterical"?) word "hysterical" on each of them, and then pretending to have presented some sort of unified argument.
I'm sure Vernon can do better than this. Well, I sure hope he can.