War on Christmas

[Non Sequitur]

This post can be disregarded by those who don't want to read a rant, but this rant has been building up in me for a while. So, instead of having it explode out of me at someone who would be offended I thought I would post it here where people are at least reasoned enough to understand. Also, I thought I would post it in an already started thread of mine instead of starting a new one. If no one wants to discuss it, that's fine.

I hate the "take back Christmas" talk at this time of year. These people have no idea what they are talking about. First, from a historical perspective, what are we taking it back from? Christmas was not a Christian holiday originally, but a Roman one that we appropriated. It is therefore not offensive or surprising that it is a semi-secular holiday today. It was always a vaguely secular holiday that we just added meaning too. Second, when these people say "take back Christmas" what they mean is go back to the 1950's civic religion. This period was highly damaging period in the American church that created a whole host of bad theologies. This period we should not want to go back to. Last, but certainly not least, to take back Christmas in a biblical way would actually mean a lot that these people would find offensive and not want to do. It would involve repentance, self sacrifice, etc... As I said, these people have no idea what they are talking about.

Sorry for the rant, just had to let it out.

[Michael]

I created a thread for Non Sequitur's rant because it is an issue that comes up every year at this time. :)

This post can be disregarded by those who don't want to read a rant, but this rant has been building up in me for a while. So, instead of having it explode out of me at someone who would be offended I thought I would post it here where people are at least reasoned enough to understand. Also, I thought I would post it in an already started thread of mine instead of starting a new one. If no one wants to discuss it, that's fine.

I hate the "take back Christmas" talk at this time of year. These people have no idea what they are talking about. First, from a historical perspective, what are we taking it back from? Christmas was not a Christian holiday originally, but a Roman one that we appropriated. It is therefore not offensive or surprising that it is a semi-secular holiday today. It was always a vaguely secular holiday that we just added meaning too. Second, when these people say "take back Christmas" what they mean is go back to the 1950's civic religion. This period was highly damaging period in the American church that created a whole host of bad theologies. This period we should not want to go back to. Last, but certainly not least, to take back Christmas in a biblical way would actually mean a lot that these people would find offensive and not want to do. It would involve repentance, self sacrifice, etc... As I said, these people have no idea what they are talking about.

Sorry for the rant, just had to let it out.
Bemused giggles! :lol:

I've addressed this issue several times. And yes, I think it is totally absurd and brutally ignorant for Christians to complain about the ancient pagan festival they usurped.

And indeed, I do find it interesting that all the elements of Christmas that are the most popular around the world are those ancient elements of pagan origin (Santa Claus, Reindeer, evergreen trees with candles, presents for kids, elves, etc).

There isn't much that is "Christian" about Christmas.

If anyone is curious, I've located the historical/mythical origins of each and every element of Christmas (none of it is of Christian origin).

[Michael]

And just to make my point perfectly clear, I have no objections if Christians want to treat the day as a Christian holy-day with prayers and fasting (or feasting).

I object to Christians demanding that this ancient pagan festival - which is very popular in secular society - be turned into something that it never was in order to satisfy their political demand for respect. That argument is absurd.

Christmas is not about the Christian religion and never has been about Christianity. If anything, Christmas is losing the 'Christian veneer' that was laid on top of it.

[partofme]

Right now the big controversy is over this ad.

http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/holiday-interior-ad-300dpi.jpg


Bill O'Reilly had a segment on his show the other night in which he said that it's a attack on Christianity and shows atheists are jealous of Christians because they have nothing to celebrate.

I can't go a single day without being bombarded by Christian messages. On the way to work I pass by a dozen or so churches with signs with corny messages on them trying to get me to come in. One group of local churches runs ads on billboards, local television, and local radio stations. Christians have four television stations that I receive on my cable package. I can also pick up two exclusively Christian radio stations. The local NBC affiliate runs the 700Club every day and it also comes on several other channels at different times. But when one group of atheists try and do the exact same thing with a few billboards suddenly that is a big deal and controversial.

[Michael]

From what I hear, these atheist billboards are a direct reply to earlier Christian ones.

Apparently the Christian ones were "okay", but humanist ones are not.

Typical double-standard that the US rightwing (and their media toadies) are famous for.

[Non Sequitur]

There isn't much that is "Christian" about Christmas.

If anyone is curious, I've located the historical/mythical origins of each and every element of Christmas (none of it is of Christian origin).

EXACTLY! There is nothing particularly wrong with this from a theological standpoint. We are very good at adopting holidays.

[Michael]

EXACTLY! There is nothing particularly wrong with this from a theological standpoint. We are very good at adopting holidays.

Very good indeed! :lol:

Historically speaking, it was formal Church policy to subvert pagan holidays and put them to Christian purposes. This policy has been 99% successful with only two known failures (Bunny rabbits at Easter and the whole Santa Claus thing at Christmas).

As an aside, I might mention here that one of my earliest questions that could never be answered to my satisfaction was all about the calendar. I wanted to know why the numbers of the months don't line up with their names. And why was New Years in the middle of the winter? I also wanted to know why at Easter (the most solemn Christian religious holy day) was celebrated with bunny rabbits and fancy painted (or chocolate) eggs! Likewise I wanted to know where the fat guy in the red suit with the reindeer came from on Christmas since the Church people never mentioned him and that day was supposed to be all about the birth of Jesus. Like where are the reindeer in that 'creche' scene? :ummm:

I was pretty young when I asked these questions and I devoted myself to finding out answers. Thus began my study of history, religion and mythology even before I was in high school. Oddly enough, I figured out proper answers for every one of the above questions long ago - except the last (Santa Claus et al)! That one took the longest time to figure out all the pieces! :lol:

[Non Sequitur]

Very good indeed! :lol:

Historically speaking, it was formal Church policy to subvert pagan holidays and put them to Christian purposes. This policy has been 99% successful with only two known failures (Bunny rabbits at Easter and the whole Santa Claus thing at Christmas).

As an aside, I might mention here that one of my earliest questions that could never be answered to my satisfaction was all about the calendar. I wanted to know why the numbers of the months don't line up with their names. And why was New Years in the middle of the winter? I also wanted to know why at Easter (the most solemn Christian religious holy day) was celebrated with bunny rabbits and fancy painted (or chocolate) eggs! Likewise I wanted to know where the fat guy in the red suit with the reindeer came from on Christmas since the Church people never mentioned him and that day was supposed to be all about the birth of Jesus. Like where are the reindeer in that 'creche' scene? :ummm:

I was pretty young when I asked these questions and I devoted myself to finding out answers. Thus began my study of history, religion and mythology even before I was in high school. Oddly enough, I figured out proper answers for every one of the above questions long ago - except the last (Santa Claus et al)! That one took the longest time to figure out all the pieces! :lol:

Easter is not my biggest irritation. There is some bad theology surrounding it, but I can deal with that.

see, the biggest problem with the arguments like the poster controversy is that the whole "be good for goodness sake" and the Christian argument "being good requires God" that it misses a lot of the point

[Donkey]

Santa Clause as he is today has quite a few influences, and to be fair, a lot of them are directly related to a Christian saint. I would say the fat, red santa is equal parts Christianity, Paganism, and Cocacola.

[dilettante]

Santa Clause as he is today has quite a few influences, and to be fair, a lot of them are directly related to a Christian saint. I would say the fat, red santa is equal parts Christianity, Paganism, and Cocacola.

I think that's true of many Christmas traditions now; they're an amalgamation of multiple religious, secular and commercial influences. Trying to demand that one influence be given exclusive credit or marginalizing influences merely because they are only partial contributors isn't helpful.

In a way there's something wondrous about the holiday's mixture of multiple traditions; many have contributed and none have entirely pushed out or overwhelmed the others.

[Michael]

Santa Clause as he is today has quite a few influences, and to be fair, a lot of them are directly related to a Christian saint. I would say the fat, red santa is equal parts Christianity, Paganism, and Cocacola.

Really? I'm curious about this.

What particular part of Santa Claus/Christmas are you suggesting contains some part of Christianity - or any particular Christian saint?

As for CocaCola, the only contribution there is to switch Santa's suit from blue to red back in the 1920's. That's a small contribution, but as far as I know, that's a significantly larger contribution than I've ever been able to find from Christianity.

[Non Sequitur]

Really? I'm curious about this.

What particular part of Santa Claus/Christmas are you suggesting contains some part of Christianity - or any particular Christian saint?

As for CocaCola, the only contribution there is to switch Santa's suit from blue to red back in the 1920's. That's a small contribution, but as far as I know, that's a significantly larger contribution than I've ever been able to find from Christianity.

The Christian contribution to Santa Claus comes from the Greek Orthodox St. Nicholas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas). Specifically, he used to leave gifts for people.

[Michael]

The Christian contribution to Santa Claus comes from the Greek Orthodox St. Nicholas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas). Specifically, he used to leave gifts for people.

That's a common supposition, but the giving of gifts to children is specifically part of the original Saturnalia Festival that is the original root of Christmas.

St.Nicholas seems to have evolved over time to take on various Christmas-related roles that have been popularly assigned to him - but historically speaking, everything he contributes is superfluous (a duplication). Hence, St.Nicholas is not the origin, just the assigned symbol carrier.

Fact is, the white bearded fellow is a representation of Chronos/Saturn which was celebrated with the Winter Solstice. Over time, this skinny white bearded fellow became to be represented by "Father Christmas" which was presumed to be a representation of St.Nicholas, though the two legends are separate.

[Donkey]

That's a common supposition, but the giving of gifts to children is specifically part of the original Saturnalia Festival that is the original root of Christmas.

St.Nicholas seems to have evolved over time to take on various Christmas-related roles that have been popularly assigned to him - but historically speaking, everything he contributes is superfluous (a duplication). Hence, St.Nicholas is not the origin, just the assigned symbol carrier.

Fact is, the white bearded fellow is a representation of Chronos/Saturn which was celebrated with the Winter Solstice. Over time, this skinny white bearded fellow became to be represented by "Father Christmas" which was presumed to be a representation of St.Nicholas, though the two legends are separate.
In modern times, however, they've been merged, imho. If I recall correctly, St. Nicholas dropped gifts through the chimney, which landed in the girls' stockings...

(Though in my family we celebrated St. Nicholas on the 6th, and Santa. Kaching.)

[Michael]

In modern times, however, they've been merged, imho. If I recall correctly, St. Nicholas dropped gifts through the chimney, which landed in the girls' stockings...

(Though in my family we celebrated St. Nicholas on the 6th, and Santa. Kaching.)

Many Christian groups have devoted considerable efforts in trying to establish Christian origins for all of the Christmas tradition over the last 2000 years.

As I noted above, poor St.Nicholas has been burdened with this duty. None of it is natural to St.Nicholas and all of it was added subsequently (usually hundreds of years later). Indeed, St. Nicholas (the original person who was canonized) lived in a time when chimneys were not yet invented.

St. Nicholas was originally known for giving out secret gifts (to people, not children) by hiding the gifts in their shoes. This was a seemingly random act of gift-giving. This is NOT the origin of giving gifts to children on December 25th. Some Christians just like to pretend that it is so.

December 6th is indeed St.Nicholas' day.

[Michael]

For anyone who is curious, Santa's sleigh and flying reindeer are just a reworking of Thor's sleigh that is pulled by three flying goats (no wings, they gallop through the air just like Santa's reindeer).

Thor's most sacred festival just happens to land on the Winter Solstice of course. And Thor's color is blue.

As noted above, the old white-bearded guy is Chronos/Saturn, who's annual festival was on the Winter Solstice. The giving of gifts to children was a part of this ancient pagan festival. Most early depictions of Father Christmas show him wearing a grey cloak - this originates from Chronos/Saturn. Over time, this grey cloak became blue - probably due to the association with St. Nicholas (or Thor). The grey turned red at the instigation a very successful CocaCola advertisement that ran during the 1920s.

The flying reindeer and the elves come from the Victorian establishment of our modern form of Christmas (also the stockings and the proverbial lump of coal).

The evergreen tree with lights originates from an old German pagan tradition of the Yule - again, also associated with the Winter Solstice.

Christmas cake is just traditional medieval winter food.

Boxing day (originates with the original Saturnalia festival) is still continued in spirit in the British military when officers serve the enlisted troops in the mess (on the day after Christmas).

Btw, there are indications that this is the same origin for the odd medieval customary festival of the 'Boy-Bishop'.

Mistletoe is a holdover from Druidic-paganism, and a notable symbol used at their pagan Winter Solstice festival (mistletoe was sacred to the Druids). Oak leaves and boughs of holly have the same origin of association.

Like I said, I have a hard time seeing anything even remotely Christian here...

[dilettante]

For anyone who is curious, Santa's sleigh and flying reindeer are just a reworking of Thor's sleigh that is pulled by three flying goats (no wings, they gallop through the air just like Santa's reindeer).

Thor's most sacred festival just happens to land on the Winter Solstice of course. And Thor's color is blue.

As noted above, the old white-bearded guy is Chronos/Saturn, who's annual festival was on the Winter Solstice. The giving of gifts to children was a part of this ancient pagan festival. Most early depictions of Father Christmas show him wearing a grey cloak - this originates from Chronos/Saturn. Over time, this grey cloak became blue - probably due to the association with St. Nicholas (or Thor). The grey turned red at the instigation a very successful CocaCola advertisement that ran during the 1920s.

The flying reindeer and the elves come from the Victorian establishment of our modern form of Christmas (also the stockings and the proverbial lump of coal).

The evergreen tree with lights originates from an old German pagan tradition of the Yule - again, also associated with the Winter Solstice.

Christmas cake is just traditional medieval winter food.

Boxing day (originates with the original Saturnalia festival) is still continued in spirit in the British military when officers serve the enlisted troops in the mess (on the day after Christmas).

Btw, there are indications that this is the same origin for the odd medieval customary festival of the 'Boy-Bishop'.

Mistletoe is a holdover from Druidic-paganism, and a notable symbol used at their pagan Winter Solstice festival (mistletoe was sacred to the Druids). Oak leaves and boughs of holly have the same origin of association.

Like I said, I have a hard time seeing anything even remotely Christian here...

Stars (or angels) on the top of Christmas trees, nativities, any number of popular religiously themed Christmas carols (From Silent Night to God Bless Ye Merry Gentlemen), the term Christmas...

The mid-winter festival we now call Christmas did not have Christian origins, but centuries of Christian influence have obviously heavily contributed to the way the holiday is understood and celebrated.

I think Donkey's probably right about Santa; regardless of the figures origins, the later assocation with St. Nicholas has helped soften the image of Santa, making him more a jolly ol' elf who eats cookies and engages in "a seemingly random act of gift-giving" and less of an ancient Greek god.

[Michael]

Stars (or angels) on the top of Christmas trees, nativities, any number of popular religiously themed Christmas carols (From Silent Night to God Bless Ye Merry Gentlemen), the term Christmas...

The mid-winter festival we now call Christmas did not have Christian origins, but centuries of Christian influence have obviously heavily contributed to the way the holiday is understood and celebrated.

I think Donkey's probably right about Santa; regardless of the figures origins, the later assocation with St. Nicholas has helped soften the image of Santa, making him more a jolly ol' elf who eats cookies and engages in "a seemingly random act of gift-giving" and less of an ancient Greek god.
Huh? :ummm:

Shall I just beat my head against a wall then?

I don't doubt that people are passionate about the myths they grew up with. I don't like the idea of public policy being dictated by your favorite myths.

The point is that Christmas represents a longstanding conscious effort by Christians to 'capture' Christmas and pretend that the original pagan origin of Christmas doesn't exist in order to claim that Christmas is an exclusively Christian holy day.

That they have been quite successful at this game of illusions doesn't detract from the factual history of the origin of Christmas.

If you want to pretend that Christmas has Christian origins, that's fine by me. But don't try to tell me that stores and governments and public assemblies MUST abide by your mythology. That's exactly what's going on here and that's why there is a media topic known as "War on Christmas". Christians are still seeking to impose their faux-Christmas as the official Christmas and that annoys the hell out of a lot of people.

My argument here is to explain the actual origins. I don't really care about the history of the Christian campaign to claim Christmas (that everyone seems to be so familiar with).

But don't try citing that Christian campaign to claim Christian origin of Christmas is an honest or true one. It just isn't.

[Non Sequitur]

That's a common supposition, but the giving of gifts to children is specifically part of the original Saturnalia Festival that is the original root of Christmas.

St.Nicholas seems to have evolved over time to take on various Christmas-related roles that have been popularly assigned to him - but historically speaking, everything he contributes is superfluous (a duplication). Hence, St.Nicholas is not the origin, just the assigned symbol carrier.

Fact is, the white bearded fellow is a representation of Chronos/Saturn which was celebrated with the Winter Solstice. Over time, this skinny white bearded fellow became to be represented by "Father Christmas" which was presumed to be a representation of St.Nicholas, though the two legends are separate.

I'm not really arguing that is where it all began, just that over 2000 years we have had our contributions here and there to the mess of other traditions.

And on a side note, the meaning of the holiday is not really found in the traditions. To the Christian, the random traditions associated with the holiday don't really add or subtract to the meaning of the holiday ("God made flesh" and all that).

[dilettante]

Huh? :ummm:

Shall I just beat my head against a wall then?

I don't doubt that people are passionate about the myths they grew up with. I don't like the idea of public policy being dictated by your favorite myths.

The point is that Christmas represents a longstanding conscious effort by Christians to 'capture' Christmas and pretend that the original pagan origin of Christmas doesn't exist in order to claim that Christmas is an exclusively Christian holy day.

That they have been quite successful at this game of illusions doesn't detract from the factual history of the origin of Christmas.

If you want to pretend that Christmas has Christian origins, that's fine by me. But don't try to tell me that stores and governments and public assemblies MUST abide by your mythology. That's exactly what's going on here and that's why there is a media topic known as "War on Christmas". Christians are still seeking to impose their faux-Christmas as the official Christmas and that annoys the hell out of a lot of people.

My argument here is to explain the actual origins. I don't really care about the history of the Christian campaign to claim Christmas (that everyone seems to be so familiar with).

But don't try citing that Christian campaign to claim Christian origin of Christmas is an honest or true one. It just isn't.

???

I didn't say anything at all about public policy or government or 'exclusivity'. And you'll note I explicitly stated that Christmas, as a mid-winter festival, "did not have Christian origins". So I'm not sure what those particular objections are referring to.

However, you listed a series of things often related to modern understandings and depictions of Christmas that did not related to Christianity (mistletoe, flying reindeer, etc) and then stated "I have a hard time seeing anything even remotely Christian here."
I was simply offering another series of things, also often related to the modern understanding and depiction of Christmas, which clearly had Christian influences and origins.
What we call "Christmas" is a holiday composed of many facets (and the mix changes for different people) whose 'origins' are remarkably diverse. As a result the 'origins' of Christmas are pagan, Christian, political and commercial. Calling some of those facets 'real Christmas' and others "faux-Christmas" strikes me as precisely what's wrong with the 'take-back-Christmas' crowd.

I agree with Non Sequitur that its foolish for Christians to be demanding that they "take back Christmas". But, IMO, the response to that mentality isn't to argue that Christmas is not Christian, but that it is not just Christian, and never has been.

[Michael]

???

I didn't say anything at all about public policy or government or 'exclusivity'. And you'll note I explicitly stated that Christmas, as a mid-winter festival, "did not have Christian origins". So I'm not sure what those particular objections are referring to.

However, you listed a series of things often related to modern understandings and depictions of Christmas that did not related to Christianity (mistletoe, flying reindeer, etc) and then stated "I have a hard time seeing anything even remotely Christian here."
I was simply offering another series of things, also often related to the modern understanding and depiction of Christmas, which clearly had Christian influences and origins.
What we call "Christmas" is a holiday composed of many facets (and the mix changes for different people) whose 'origins' are remarkably diverse. As a result the 'origins' of Christmas are pagan, Christian, political and commercial. Calling some of those facets 'real Christmas' and others "faux-Christmas" strikes me as precisely what's wrong with the 'take-back-Christmas' crowd.

I agree with Non Sequitur that its foolish for Christians to be demanding that they "take back Christmas". But, IMO, the response to that mentality isn't to argue that Christmas is not Christian, but that it is not just Christian, and never has been.
My apologies. I was in a sharp mood yesterday.

But the whole point of the debate is the 'Christian' claim to "own" Christmas in origin, not about what Christmas has become.

The goal of my argument about the origin of christmas is to eliminate the whole debate. The origin is entirely pagan/secular. Everything else represents subsequent Christian claims to "own" Christmas. Now if one wants to talk about the evolution of what Christmas actually has become, that's a whole different topic, and that one definitely includes a wide variety of cultural influences, not the least of which has been Chistianity.

But I'm talking entirely about the actual historical origins. The pagan traditions of the Solstice Festival lived on in Europe (Holland, Germany & Scandanavia) with the tradition of Father Christmas (Sinterklaaus) derived from Chronos/Saturn (one can trace the evolution of Chronos' scythe to Father Christmas' staff in various pre-19th century historical depictions).

As for mistletoe and wreaths of holly, they are an ancient Christmas 'symbol' as much as the yule tree (very similar in fact). It is part of the link between ancient pagan traditions of the (non-Christian) Solstice Festival and modern times.

One can't get any more pagan than hanging mistletoe to celebrate the Winter Solstice!

[dilettante]

My apologies. I was in a sharp mood yesterday.

No worries. :)


But the whole point of the debate is the 'Christian' claim to "own" Christmas in origin, not about what Christmas has become.

The goal of my argument about the origin of christmas is to eliminate the whole debate. The origin is entirely pagan/secular. Everything else represents subsequent Christian claims to "own" Christmas...

I agree that Christianity doesn't "own" Christmas in origin, but I think the way to "eliminate the whole debate" is to recognize that Christmas doesn't have a single origin (either culturally or chronologically).

To say "The origin is entirely pagan/secular" is to say that the aspects of Christmas which originated from Christianity (the stars, angels, songs, nativities, the word itself, etc) somehow don't really count; it draws a seemingly arbitrary chronological line and declares that all the secular/pagan traditions on one side count when it comes to considering the origins of the holiday but all the secular/Christian traditions on the other side are just superfluous 'add-ons' which shouldn't be included when we look for the 'origin' of Christmas.
The Christian 'take-back-Christmas' people do the same thing in reverse; they only include stuff on the other side of the arbitrary line as included in what's really Christmas (and they call the rest just some related, but essentially different, old pagan holiday which lingers on).

But the point is that the line is always arbitrary; as is the collection of stuff that counts as "Christmas". If one decides that nativity scenes count as being part of Christmas, then that part, at the very least, has Christian origins. If one decides that flying reindeer count as being part of Christmas, then that part, at the very least, has pagan origins. And so on and so forth...But I think the best approach is just to say there is no one origin, Christian, pagan or otherwise.

And, on a somewhat related note:
http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2009-12-11.gif

[Donkey]

^ IAWTP.