kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (08/21/89)
It's August I know, but I want to post this now so that if it catches it
might make a statement by December. Every year Christmas roles around,
and every year with it comes the litigation that drives us batty. Each
year, the courts decide how or what denotes "religion" and what does not.
And it's all depressing. Through it all we have to put up with the
veritable orgy of consumerism that has become Christmas in recent years.
And I think it's enough. Let's take it back...
dennis
*******************************************************************
Dear President Bush,
We the undersigned are tired of standing by watching the courts and shopping
centers define for us what Christmas should be like. Christmas is foremost
a religious holiday. And that is now lost. We feel that this is because,
the holiday is also a holiday recognized by the State. Since the State can
not hold any preference for any one religion, the State necessarily has to
convert its celebration of Christmas into a non-religious/cultural phenomenon.
But this insults the beliefs and dignity of all who profess to be Christians.
And we are tired of it. We want Christmas back.
So we ask you, to recognize Christmas as primarily a religious holiday, to take
Christmas off the calendar of national holidays, and to ask for an end to all
government support of all Christmas-related functions and displays. Let the
people celebrate Christmas in their own fashion without any State interference
at all. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
*********************************************************************
Actually, I REALLY DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS. But I'm really tired of it all.
What do you think?
dennis
kriz@skat.usc.edurhg2@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Rich Graham) (08/24/89)
In article <Aug.21.02.10.33.1989.5818@athos.rutgers.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes: >Dear President Bush, > >We the undersigned are tired of standing by watching the courts and shopping >centers define for us what Christmas should be like. Christmas is foremost >a religious holiday. And that is now lost. We feel that this is because, >the holiday is also a holiday recognized by the State. ... Last Christmas, I saw a program (on a Christian station) urging Christians not to celebrate Christmas. The reasoning went something like this. One of the first Christian Roman emporers was doing his best to promote Christianity. He did this by (among other things) offering freedom to any slave who converted. The result was lots of "Christians" who wanted to continue their old ways, including their winter celeration, then attributed to some Roman god, maybe Apollo. Unable to stop the celebrations, the emporer just decided to dedicate the celebration to Christ instead. So Christmas merely a Christian label on a non-Christian celebration. I still celebrated Christmas, but it made me think a little more about the holiday. Regardless of the nativity scenes and the carols on the radio, Christmas - as celebrated in the US - is NOT primarily a religious holiday. It is primarily a cultural one. Far more people go to parties and shopping malls than go to church or participate in genuine religious rituals. I would advise anyone who wants to get more serious about celebrating Christ's birth to separate this from the cultural Christmas in their own lives, and possibly express their feelings about the matter. Mainstream America doesn't realize that their holiday is not really very religious, and probably doesn't care anyway. -- Richard H. Graham University of Pittsburgh - CIS rhg2@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu
crowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Daniel Crowe) (08/24/89)
[This note is a response to a posting by kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz). He posted a letter he was thinking of writing to the President, protesting the non-religious/cultural nature of Christmas celeberations. He asked for the government to remove it from the calendar of national holidays, and not to do any Christmas-related functions or displays. --clh] Two comments: 1) Christmas is not and never was a true Christian holy day. Christmas was originally a pagan festival commemorating the birth or rebirth of a sun god, Mithra in Persia, Helios in Greece, etc. It became a part of the "Christian" calendar during the first few centuries after the death of Jesus because the Gentile converts refused to refrain from observing the festival. Therefore the leaders of the church decided to try to shift the focus of the festival. The attempt has never been completely successful. The festival has always contained pagan influences, because it has always been a pagan festival. 2) Christmas is a federal holiday because the vast majority of Americans do not wish to work on December 25 so that they can participate in the festivities. Your efforts might be better spent if you try to convince others that Christmas is not a Christian holiday, thereby letting it revert to a completely pagan event. -- Daniel (God is my judge) * "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to physics graduate student * speak and slow to become angry, for man's City College of New York * anger does not bring about the righteous crowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu * life that God desires." (James 1:19-20)
rock@sun.com (Bill Petro) (09/01/89)
crowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Daniel Crowe) writes: >[This note is a response to a posting by kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis >Kriz). He posted a letter he was thinking of writing to the >President, protesting the non-religious/cultural nature of Christmas >celeberations. He asked for the government to remove it from the >calendar of national holidays, and not to do any Christmas-related >functions or displays. --clh] The Christmas feast itself was not the among the earliest festivals of the church and did not enjoy general celebration until the 4th century. Agreement on the date of December 25 (in the West at least) did not occur until the early 5th century. The Eastern church's celebration is on January 6. It may be that Christmas was fixed at the end of December to supercede the pagan Roman 'Saturnalia', many of whose customs survive into the modern holiday. The ancient Romans decorated with holly, mistletoe, and evergreen and exchanged gifts and feasted. December 25 was the 'natalis invicti solis' or the birthday of the unconquerable sun, their date of the winter solstice, when the sun began its northern climb in the skies and the days grew longer. December 25 was now to be known for the birth of the unconquerable Son. Bill Petro, your friendly neighborhood historian P.S. Stay tuned for the complete series on the history behind the holidays coming later this year. Bill Petro {decwrl,hplabs,ucbvax}!sun!Eng!rock "UNIX for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" Matthew 19:12
barry@hpdml93.hp.com (Barry Kurtz) (09/01/89)
My advice on Christmas is to take control of the holiday and don't let the commercialism of others control you. Even though from the scriptures it is rather obvious that Christ was not born in December, our family uses Christmas as a special time to celebrate the birth of Christ. Whether or not Christmas began as a pagan holiday, you cannot deny the spirit of giving it generates and for some, the general spirit of good will. Granted, there are some who have a difficult time with the season, but you'll never be successful in destroying it. A better approach would be the promote the positive aspects of a genuine celebration the birth of Jesus Christ. Barry Kurtz (these opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the positions of my employer)
conan@skippy.berkeley.edu (09/04/89)
In article <Aug.24.02.30.30.1989.28148@athos.rutgers.edu> crowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Daniel Crowe) writes: > >Your efforts might be better spent if you try to convince others >that Christmas is not a Christian holiday, thereby letting it revert >to a completely pagan event. > I am disturbed by this attitude that Christmas cannot be a Christian holiday because it has roots (which are in fact unclear and subject to scholarly debate) in a pagan holiday. Isn't the incarnation of Christ an event worth celebrating? The event itself is scriptural, but the exact date is not given. Is it not therefore in the power of the church to select a date (albeit arbitrarily or for pragmatic reasons) on which to commemorate this event? I think that underlying this is a dispute which dates back to the Reformation: if something is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, can it still be a church practice? Obviously, I think the answer is yes. Our goal should be to celebrate Christmas as the birth of Jesus, and allow the silly, consumeristic hullaballoo to blow past us. Your brother in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
kolassa@ysidro.uchicago.edu (Kolassa) (09/04/89)
In article <Sep.1.02.50.29.1989.18399@athos.rutgers.edu> rock@sun.com (Bill Petro) writes: >Agreement on the date of December 25 (in the West at least) >did not occur until the early 5th century. The Eastern church's >celebration is on January 6. Actually, both dates have the same root. December 25 on the Julian calendar is close to January 6 in the Gregorian calendar. Most Eastern Christians now use the Gregorian calendar and have been using it since the 1920's; however some, including some Eastern rite Catholocs, still use the Julian calendar. A discussion of the calendar debate can be found in Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church. I think the above is correct; however, the number of days by which the Julian and Gregorian calendars disagree should be increasing. Does anyone know why the Jan 6 date is fixed, or know that my explanation is wrong? John Kolassa
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (09/07/89)
In article <Sep.4.05.56.14.1989.25680@athos.rutgers.edu> conan@skippy.berkeley.edu writes: >I am disturbed by this attitude that Christmas cannot be a Christian holiday >because it has roots (which are in fact unclear and subject to scholarly >debate) in a pagan holiday. The late Walter Martin had a good point to make in this regard. (Roughly reconstructed from memory based on hearing it a couple of times.) Do you refuse to write dates as we know them? Many of the names of months and days come from pagan origins. Some examples: Thursday = "Thor's day" January = named after Janus March = named for the god Mars (there are several more, but memory fails me) So, does that mean we should stop writing or saying "Thursday," "January," or "March"? Nonsense. Neither should we stop celebrating Christmas just because it was originally a pagan holiday. >Isn't the incarnation of Christ an event worth >celebrating? The event itself is scriptural, but the exact date is not >given. Is it not therefore in the power of the church to select a date >(albeit arbitrarily or for pragmatic reasons) on which to commemorate this >event? Absolutely. One person (I forget who), posted that maybe the solution to the secualrizing of Christmas is for Christians to take it back. I agree. We need to remember that the holiday is CHRISTmas. "Jesus is the reason for the season," and "Wise men still seek Him." I think that Christmas and Easter (another holiday with pagan origins, but that should still be celebrated) offer us one of the best opportunities to remind our non-Christian friends of who Jesus is and what He did for us. >Our goal should be to celebrate Christmas as the birth of Jesus, and allow >the silly, consumeristic hullaballoo to blow past us. And remind those caught up in the "silly, consumeristic hullaballoo" that there's more to the holiday. Larry Norman wrote a song a while back called "Christmastime." I hope I won't violate any copyrights by quoting some of it: Santa Claus is comin' and the kids are gettin' greedy. (It's Christmastime) They know it's in the store because they've seen it on the TV. (It's Christmastime) It used to be the birthday of the Man who saved our necks. (It's Christmastime) But now it stands for Santa Claus; you spell it with an 'X.' (It's Christmastime) :-) -- Geoff Allen {uunet,bigtex}!pmafire!geoff <or> ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff "May the God of Peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." -- Hebrews 13:20,21 (NIV)
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (09/11/89)
In article <Sep.7.04.37.53.1989.17829@athos.rutgers.edu> geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) writes: > Thursday = "Thor's day" > January = named after Janus > March = named for the god Mars > (there are several more, but memory fails me) Days of the week come from Norse mythology--all of them-- Sunday = Sun Day Monday = Moon Day Tuesday = Tiw's day Tiw was the northern god of war Wednesday = Odin's day Odin was the chief god Thursday = Thor's day Thor was the god of thunder (armed with a hammer) Friday = Freya's day Freya was the goddess of love and beauty Saturday = Saturn's day (ok, not ALL Norse...) Months come from Latin: January: from Janus, the god of doors February: from Februa, the feast of purification held in this month March: from Mars, the god of war April: In Latin, Aprillus, but nobody knows the origin of that word May: from the goddess Maia June: from Jupiter, the chief god July: from Julius Caesar. Prior to Augustine's naming of this month and the next, this was called Quinctilis, from quintus, fifth. August: From the Emperor Augustus (Octavian). Prior to his renaiming of these two months, this was Sextilis, from sextus, sixth. September: From septimus, seventh. October: From octavus, eighth. November: From nonus, ninth. December: From decimus, tenth. As for why the numbering of the later months is off by two, the original Roman calendar didn't have any January or February, it only ran during the non-winter months. It started with March and went to December. The reason the first month was name for Mars, is because when the calendar started, there was again good enough weather for military campaigns. -- Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. Telephone: +1 505 292 0001 / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
jeffjs@ihlpb.att.com (Jeffrey Jay Sargent) (09/11/89)
For C.S. Lewis's comments on this issue, see two short essays which appear in his _God in the Dock_ anthology: "What Christmas Means to Me", a serious essay contrasting the Christian holiday, the conviviality, and the commercial racket; and "Xmas and Christmas", a tongue-in-cheek approach to the same topic. -- -- Jeff Sargent att!ihlpb!jeffjs (UUCP), jeffjs@ihlpb.att.com (Internet) AT&T Bell Laboratories, IH 5A-433, Naperville, IL (312) 979-5284 When you have eliminated the improbable, then whatever remains, however impossible, must be the truth.
kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (12/24/90)
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. 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." 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." 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: 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. 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]. 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. 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. 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. So this is a "Second annual letter" to President Bush, to ask for help in "returning Christmas to us" dennis kriz@skat.usc.edu