6106264@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Paul Licameli) (01/06/88)
In article <4073@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >In article <14199@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (D 1 4 U 2 C) writes: >>Mark William Hopkins (who did something totally idiotic to the >>headers on his article) writes: >>) Wrong, fool! The Church grafted their commemoration of Christ's >>... >>Good going pea-brain. You think the church kept the original ritual >>... >taking things out of context?). Good going, pea brain... >Better luck next time, fool! Well, I am appalled. The idea, of such intolerant name-calling in talk.origins of all groups! 8^) Seriously, gentle alt.flamers, this lively discussion has little relevance to our happy little forum. Kindly edit your followup lines. Paul R. Licameli
oleg@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev) (01/07/88)
In article <4073@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >And lest we think a name makes a holiday, let me ask about what those poor >Christians did before Christmas was even named so (around 900). They did nothing. They did not celebrate Xmass. The less faithfull and more pagan-inclined Xtians may have celebrated the Solstice (or whatever) as a tribute to the Old Gods (as is common in many Xtianized cultures). And at some point the Church decided to do away with the pagan celebration by co-opting it. You may find it educational to find out what the names for Xmass are in other languages. -- Oleg Kiselev -- oleg@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg HASA, "A" Division DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for my employers.
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (01/08/88)
In article <1415@quad1.quad.com> oleg@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >In article <4073@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >>And lest we think a name makes a holiday, let me ask about what those poor >>Christians did before Christmas was even named so (around 900). > >They did nothing. They did not celebrate Xmass. The less faithfull and more >pagan-inclined Xtians may have celebrated the Solstice (or whatever) as a ^^^^^^^^ OOPS! Sorry about that. I meant Winter Solistice, not Vernal Equinox (that's Easter I was thinking about there). >tribute to the Old Gods (as is common in many Xtianized cultures). And at some >point the Church decided to do away with the pagan celebration by co-opting it. AH! SOMEBODY UNDERSTANDS! But we can be pretty sure that the early Church celebrated Christ's birth in some manner, though not at a standard time. > >You may find it educational to find out what the names for Xmass are in other >languages. That's for sure (Nativity, Noel, ...), which makes the point all the more that a name is not an essential part of a holiday. This means that even though the name Christmas contains Christ's name in it, it is not an essential infringement on one's religious freedoms to celebrate Christmas in public. But I covered all grounds there. I do not believe it is an infringement on anyone's religious freedom to celebrate ANY holiday in public, regardless of what religion it comes from. This is another, better, way to interpret the amendment of the freedom of religious practice. It is another way for the government to show a lack of preference for a specific religion. >-- >Oleg Kiselev -- oleg@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg >HASA, "A" Division
oleg@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev) (01/14/88)
This has stopped being a flame -- lets take it back to t.r.m, OK? In article <4108@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >>tribute to the Old Gods (as is common in many Xtianized cultures). And at some >>point the Church decided to do away with the pagan celebration by co-opting it >AH! SOMEBODY UNDERSTANDS! But we can be pretty sure that the early Church >celebrated Christ's birth in some manner, though not at a standard time. Can we really? I am not at all sure. Anybody with a better knowledge of early Xtian history? >>You may find it educational to find out what the names for Xmass are in other >>languages. >That's for sure (Nativity, Noel, ...), which makes the point all the more that >a name is not an essential part of a holiday. This means that even though the >name Christmas contains Christ's name in it, it is not an essential infringement >on one's religious freedoms to celebrate Christmas in public. Sigh... You missed it Mark. That was the hole point of my suggestion -- in many (most?) other languages the name for Xmas unambiguosly states that it is a celebration of "The Birth," "The Birth of Christ." Why would anyone who does not worship or even believe in Jesus Christ's exsitance celebrate "His" birthday? >I do not believe it is an infringement on >anyone's religious freedom to celebrate ANY holiday in public, regardless of >what religion it comes from. This is another, better, way to interpret the >amendment of the freedom of religious practice. It is another way for the >government to show a lack of preference for a specific religion. The argument was NOT that a celebration in public is an infringement on other people's rights, but that a *governmental* (and business) sponsorship of such celebrations to the exclusion of others IS. I.e. when an office holds a *Xmas* party, the practice and beliefs of Xtianity are encouraged and supported, to the exclusion and detriment of *other* religions. -- Oleg Kiselev -- oleg@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg HASA, "A" Division DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for my employers.