John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) (01/03/91)
In article <Dec.24.03.17.14.1990.15636@athos.rutgers.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes: > Yesterday there was an article in the view section of the LA Times in which > a Jewish group was featured protesting a planned assembly at a public > school in which Santa Claus was supposed to hand out candy-canes to all > the school-children present. Good for them! > The thrust of their argument was that the assembly made it impossible for > non-Christian children to discreetly not participate. Apparently, Santa > Claus is still too closely associated with "Christian celebration." Especially in an area with spanish speaking children, the name Santa is indicative of a Roman Catholic saint. In this case the saint is Saint Nicolas, feast day December 6, who was first honored in the 6th century with a church of St. Nicholas at Constantinople. According to the Penguin Dictionary of Saints he has been one of the most popular saints from the 9th C in the East and the 11th in the West. Bishop of Myra in Lycia in the 4th C., a legend from a biography published in the 9th C. claims that Nicholas saved 3 young girls from prostitution by throwing 3 bags of gold as dowry into their window at night. He was also claimed to have been at the Council of Nicea in 325 and to have miraculously brought back to life murdered children. He is patron of courtries, provinces, cities; titular of churches numerable, the saint of sailors, children, merchants, pawnbrokers, and others. His representation is legion in religious art. "St. Nicholas as patron of children is the origin of "Father Christmas". Presents were - in some countries still are -- given on his feast day, and "Santa Claus" is derived, via America, from the Dutch dialect form of his name, Sinte Klaas." While the modern fat bellied Santa and the miraculous legends about him are not true, neither it appears are the older but RC and Orthodox church accepted legends. Nevertheless, for a great part of the world, St. Nick is associated with Christmas and gift giving. Clearly a religious association. > I sympathize with the Jewish group in that it didn't want its kids to > have to be forced to "come over to Santa" I really do. > > What I object to is the association that Santa has necessarily anything > to do anymore with "Christian celebration." The falsity of this statement is clear to anyone who knows the smallest whit about church history and the picking of the winter solstice for the Christ birth feast. There is really no basis for assigning this date to Jesus' birth except that there were already pagan birth festivals (Mithra in particular and the Winter Solstice rebirth of the Sun festival). The church picked this date to take advantange of the existing festivals. Until the coming of the Puritans, the Christmas feast was celebrated, as a coming of the new year, with great festivity. > > I don't want to defend Santa. Indeed, I'd like to "dump him". If after > a generation of court case after court case progressively stripping > Christmas of any religious root (that's why we have such a cult of Santa > to begin with), Santa Claus is *still* associated with "Christian > celebration", it's time to admit that this 'experiment' (more akin to > a kidnapping and rape) of "secularizing" Christmas has failed ... and > to do the honest thing: As above, Christmas is a coopting of the pagan festivals and was celebrated joyously by the Christian community. > > Remove Christmas from the list of official holidays. And simply > allow employees/school children to take a "personal day off" on > that day if they desire. In our pluralist society we can celebrate Christmas, Chanukah, Solstice, and other holidays of birth and rebirth together and at the same time. We may not need this holiday in the warm areas of Los Angeles, but believe me, we need it in those areas of the world that get frigid, even North Carolina. > Simply ban all "Holiday displays" on public property during this > time. Seeing the Santa Claus/Christmas tree on public property, > is as painful for many Christians as it is for many non-Christians. > [Indeed, whereas Monterey, CA was required to put up a minorah > and a Christmas tree next to a nativity scene this year, Beverly > Hills CA was simply required to put up a Christmas tree next to > its minorah display. Both displays were on public property ... > and the message at least to me is clear ... Whereas non-Christian > identity is protected, Christian sensibilities can be walked on]. Sorry, but the Christmas tree was coopted by Christians in Germany from the Wiccans and other nature pagans, just as many families in my NY Jewish neighborhood coopted it into a Chanukah bush. As a Unitarian I would mention that it was a Christian Unitarian minister who brought the Christmas tree to America from Germany c. 1840 and helped to replace the stamping out of the Christmas celebration by the Puritans. > Seeing displays of Santa Claus/Christmas trees on public land > in absence of any religious root can and should begin to be > looked at as representing a modern day persecution of Christians. As above, you simply don't have a clear understanding of the intermingling of Christmas and the other Winter festivals. This is not a modern day persecution of Christians. It is a continuation of the process of centuries, led by the Roman Catholic church in its effort to convert Pagans to Christianity. > The display on public property of a Santa Claus/Christmas tree > in absense of any religious root is as much an ideological > statement as the display on public property of a swastika or a > hammer and sickle. Sure it's sugar coated, but it still > slams (Christian) sensitivities. It only slams Holier-than-thou sensitivities. You are attempting, like the Puritans, to take the Joy and frivolity out of Christmas and the Winter season when it is most needed. Especially now as we approach war. Scrooge. > The honest thing to do, if a nativity scene is deemed painful > to non-Christians, is to ask that the Santa Clauses be taken > down too. The honest thing to do is to admit the way in which Christmas has developed. > > So this is a "Second annual letter" to President Bush, to ask for help > in "returning Christmas to us" And this is my first annual plea to President Bush, to ask him to remember the Christmas message of the angels, that there be "PEACE ON EARTH, GOOD WILL TOWARDS MEN (AND WOMEN). John Allan Graves Unitarian Universalism Duke University An inclusive religion! and all its components () including the Divinity School, \__/ disavow anything I say. II
kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (01/07/91)
In article <Jan.3.04.30.15.1991.14557@athos.rutgers.edu> John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) writes:
[That Christmas is basically a co-opted pagan holiday]
Christians may not know on what exact day Christ was born, but that certainly
can't be used to prevent them from celebrating his birth in Bethlehem.
Further, it is not a mystery that Christians began celebrating Christ's
birth in December so that it would fall on Roman feast for their pagan
God Jupiter. Why? Because Christians were persecuted in the early
centuries AD. And they had to be seen celebrating *something* during
the Roman feast day for Jupiter that fell around the winter solstice.
Many pagan cultures held celebrations around the winter solstice.
But certainly none of those pagan and non-Christian cultures called the
holiday Christmas. And arguably none of them (except by chance) celebrated
the holiday on Dec. 25th, because the solstice falls on Dec 21st.
Some cultures may have celebrated their festivals a few days before or a
few days after the solstice. But there simply is nothing *sacred* about
Dec 25th, EXCEPT in the (western) Christian context.
The selection of Dec 25th as the day for celebrating Christ's birth,
was finalized by papal decree, when the Gregorian (current) calandar
was implemented. That is why the Christians coming from the western
Christian traditions celebrate Christmas on that day.
But if we TRULY believe in the SEPARATION of Church and State, there
is no reason why Dec 25th should be the day which the State celebrates
a secular "Sharing-of-Gifts"/"Good Tidings" Day.
Indeed, so long as the official State holiday remains being called
Christmas, and falls on Dec 25th, there will be religious groups
which do not follow the western Christian tradition that will
complain (legitimately) that the State holiday is still too Christian.
Thus insisting on the secularization of Christmas, while at the same time
insisting that it remain called Christmas and remain celebrated on Dec 25th
seems to me a prescription for pain and is fundamentally dishonest.
There is simply no reason why the State can not celebrate a secular "Sharing
of-Gifts-Day" on either Dec 21st or the 4th Monday of December. And ultima-
tely, the nations retailers could care little if a fully secularized Father
Yule, would come on Dec 25th, or the other two days mentioned.
So that arrangement would promise to make everybody happier.
Presumably non-Christians would be happy, because the holiday would be
fully separated from Christian tradition.
And Christians would be happy, because they would be allowed to celebrate
the birth of their savior in peace, as for instance Yom Kippur is celebrated
in peace by the Jewish community in this country.
dennis
kriz@skat.usc.edulums@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (Andy Lumsdaine) (01/07/91)
In article <Jan.3.04.30.15.1991.14557@athos.rutgers.edu> John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: >In article <Dec.24.03.17.14.1990.15636@athos.rutgers.edu> >kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes: >> So this is a "Second annual letter" to President Bush, to ask for help >> in "returning Christmas to us" > >And this is my first annual plea to President Bush, to ask him to remember >the Christmas message of the angels, that there be "PEACE ON EARTH, GOOD >WILL TOWARDS MEN (AND WOMEN). I'm sorry, but I must disagree. The Christmas message of the angels was (and is): And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. - Luke 2:10-14 That "the true meaning of Christmas" is peace on earth, good will to men (and women) is an increasingly popular sentiment, but one which I (as a Christian) find somewhat distressing. While it is a nice sentiment as far as it goes, it is not by any measure the whole story. It leaves out the crucial and glorious fact (yes, I mean fact) that through Jesus Christ (he whose birth Christians celebrate on Christmas), we can be reconciled with God. As a minor point, I should also point out that other translations render Luke 2:14 something like: "... and on earth peace and good will towards men with whom His favour rests." (This is from memory, don't have anything but King James with me -- it should be about right, though.) So again, the message of the angels is not quite the warm fuzzy that popular culture would like it to be. Regards, A.L. Andrew Lumsdaine "We don't understand the software, and lums@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu sometimes we don't understand the hardware, MIT RLE but we can *see* the blinking lights!"
merlyn@digibd.com (Brian Westley (Merlyn LeRoy)) (01/15/91)
kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes: >...And arguably none of them (except by chance) celebrated >the holiday on Dec. 25th, because the solstice falls on Dec 21st. It's hard to tell when the days stop getting shorter and start getting longer when your only instruments are a few sticks stuck in the ground. It would take 3 or 4 days before they could be certain that the days were getting longer, thus the celebration misses the event by a few days. ---- Merlyn LeRoy
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (01/21/91)
Dennis Kriz wrote: > >...And arguably none of them (except by chance) celebrated > >the holiday on Dec. 25th, because the solstice falls on Dec 21st. and Merlyn LeRoy observes: > It's hard to tell when the days stop getting shorter and start getting > longer when your only instruments are a few sticks stuck in the ground. > It would take 3 or 4 days before they could be certain that the days > were getting longer, thus the celebration misses the event by a few days. Actually, both comments are arguably wide of the mark. Ancient astronomy was by Roman times quite competent (in both Greek and Babylonian versions) to find the date of the solstice to within several hours. The Julian year with its approximation of 365.25 days per year is itself an argument that the date was knowable to within 6 hours. The arrangement that Caesar put into effect was intended to have the equinoxes and solstices on the 25th of the relevant months (traditional Roman calendar dates for these, though the Republican calendar Caesar was replacing was actually handled more or less like the US budget process (there were good reasons for that -- the manipulation of the calendar could enable the manipulator to prevent his political opponents from transacting business, because a day was _nefas_.)) Julius up and got knifed shortly after his reform, and Civil War and the traditional Roman inability to comprehend calendars left things a political mess until Augustus eventually got around to cleaning it up, and towards the end of his reign the standard Julian rule (extra day in Febrauray every 4 years; actually the Romans inserted this as what we would call a "second February 23rd" -- in their reckoning, a 2nd day counted as the 6th before the calends of March. Roman arithmetic and time reckoning is enough to drive any sane person utterly mad) began to be applied reliably. Partly because of political/calendrical chaos, the solstice then really "was" at nearer the 21st (and more important, the spring equinox which sets the date of Passover and Easter was around March 21st.) Astronomers (all Greeks, of course :-)) knew this, but the Romans still "thought" of the date as the 25th. Of course WE know that the Julian rule is about 3 days off every 400 years, a matter not corrected until 1582 (or later in lands suspicious of the Pope) when the equinox was actually occuring around the 10th or 11th of March. They "dropped" 10 days to restore the equinox to the 21st -- essentially, where it was when the Council of Nicea established the rule for calculating Easter. 1600 years earlier (about the time Augustus began to be aware that his calendar was a bit screwy), the equinoctial date would have been about March 23rd -- and if we project the Julian calendar back to the days of the Punic Wars (which is where Roman tradition really saw itself, forever after -- just as Americans tend to "see" themselves in the days of the Revolution) it really DOES come out at the 25th. Of course, it is a good bet that, all tradition to the contrary notwithstanding, there was NEVER a Roman equinox actually transpiring on a date that the contemporary Romans (if they would ever count sensibly) would have *called* March 25th. Now, aren't you glad you asked? :-) -- Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must m.siemon@ATT.COM love the truth we know, and we must ...!att!attunix!mls act according to the measure of our love. standard disclaimer -- Thomas Merton
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (01/23/91)
In article <Jan.15.04.47.12.1991.12830@athos.rutgers.edu> merlyn@digibd.com (Brian Westley (Merlyn LeRoy)) writes:
It's hard to tell when the days stop getting shorter and start getting
longer when your only instruments are a few sticks stuck in the ground.
It would take 3 or 4 days before they could be certain that the days
were getting longer, thus the celebration misses the event by a few days.
The accuracy of ancient astronomers is legion. The Anasazi built huge
kivas which indicate the arrival of the solstices. The Romans knew
when the solstice arrived with remarkable accuracy as well.
-mib