Two Christmas's

[dgs49]

Much of Christianity has traditionally celebrated the Nativity of Christ on December 25 each year, a date which was adopted from the Winter Solstice celebration in the Roman calendar. The date has nothing to do with the birth of Christ, and in fact nobody knows the calendar date - or even the season - on which Christ was born; indeed many dispute the fact that a single Jesus of Nazareth even existed, let alone has a birthday to be celebrated. Nevertheless, most Christians in the U.S. celebrate the Nativity on December 25th with an appropriate church service. It is noteworthy that Christian tradition also later memorializes a visit to the Christ Child by three Zoroastrian priests ("Magi") who brought him valuable gifts. The visit of the Magi is celebrated by custom on the 6th of January, which is a date on which some Christian sects exchange gifts among themselves.

Also on December 25th, English-speaking society has spawned a HOLIDAY called, "Christmas," which is celebrated with a decorated and lighted "Christmas Tree" (having nothing to do with the Nativity of Christ), gift-giving (having nothing to do with the Nativity), and overconsumption of food and beverage (having nothing to do with the Nativity). Children are told a myth about an elf called, "Santa Clause," or "Father Christmas," who surreptitiously brings their toys and other gifts while they sleep on the night before Christmas. This elf and the myth have nothing to do with Christmas, although the original personage is said to have been a Christian "Saint."

While Christians would do well to remember that there are two distinct celebrations on December 25, there is no reason why non-Christians cannot celebrate the secular holiday (Christmas tree, gift-giving, over-consumption, Santa Claus), even if they are uncomfortable with the name of it. It is not a "Christian" celebration in any meaningful way, and the lame attempts to re-cast it by another name simply seem stupid and petty.

The issues with the name are superficially sound, but on closer examination have little merit. Non-Christian have no problem visiting or living in Corpus Christi, or "The City of Our Lady - Queen of the Angels," and the capital of Gay America is in a city named after Saint Francis (not sure whether it was Asisi or Xavier). Also, around the country and especially in New Orleans, non-Christians revel in debauchery on a day originally established to mark the beginning of the liturgical season of Lent. It should not be considered an homage to Christianity to celebrate the secular holiday of "Christmas."

No person or politician should have any compunctions at all about wishing others a "Merry Christmas," nor should any non-Christian take offense. It's a long-established secular holiday, after all.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Quotation marks and a source might be useful

[Joe Guy]

SF was named after St Francis of a sissy...

[Sue U]

Also too, it should be "Two Christmases," unless the apostrophe is solely to annoy Meade, who's playing possum.

It is entirely a myth that any non-Christian takes offense at being wished a "merry Christmas" -- a myth ginned up by those who want to be offended that anyone should be offended, in service of their particular agenda(e) ("overbearing political correctness," "persecuted Christians," "war on Christmas," etc.).

What offends me is that at this time of year, many Christians choose to be particularly arrogant and obnoxious concerning their faith and what they perceive to be its role in society -- especially those culture warriors who screech about how Christians are being marginalized (seriously???), in order to fuel the manufactured outrage that is the common currency of the political right. My entire childhood was spent with schoolteachers and other adults patronizing and pitying me because my family "doesn't have Christmas" (just that odd, also-ran winter holiday with the candles or whatever), and we don't participate in all the community celebrations of The Birth Of Our Lord And Savior. I am sick to death of hearing about "our Christian nation" and "our Christian heritage" and "our Christian values" and whether our political leaders display a sufficient amount of Christianity and Bibling in their personal and public lives.

Say what you will about the "secular" aspects of the holiday, but Christmas is fundamentally an advertisement for Christianity. I doubt you would find many Jews, Muslims, or other non-observers of Christmas who think that Christmas trees and Santa Claus are genuinely secular expressions of anything, or that Christmas is any kind of secular holiday at all, but there ya go. Apparently, there is some significant portion of the Christmas-observing world that does make this distinction. But it sends a highly mixed message when these same people constantly exhort us to "keep Christ in Christmas."

Aside from attending Mass or some other service, there is no other strictly "religious" practice associated with Christmas; yet it is foolish to claim that everything else is "secular" and not part of the Christian holiday. Many Christians go door to door singing carols, many or most of which are in praise of God and Jesus. Is this practice in any way secular? Many Christians decorate their "pagan" trees with angels and stars to symbolize the Annunciation; how secular is that? Not to mention the mass media and other entertainments whose seasonal programs heavily feature "Christmas miracles" and emphasize "God's love." While I understand the theoretical distinction between the "secular" and "religious" celebrations of Christmas, in practical terms it makes no difference, especially to many of those who are not Christians or Christmas-observers. But this is something that many Christians simply fail to grasp.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Sue U]

[oldr_n_wsr]

It's only "playing" possum.

[Big RR]

sue--while I agree with most of what you wrote, I do think some religious holidays can take on secular meanings as well. New Years day, for example, is a week after Christmas to coincide with the bris of jesus (as I understand it traditionally occurs a week after the birth); but except for the Roman Catholics (who have made January 1 into a religious holiday I cannot recall the name of, because we couldn't, after all, celebrate a jewish ritual), few Christians see it as a a religious holiday at all (except maybe a day to worship Bacchus).

As for christmas, I do think there are some among Christians who decry the secular part of it (and some who avoid that altogether), and some who celebrate the day without any regard to Christianity at all (not as many as celebrate New Years that way, but a substantial number).

As for marginalizing Christians, one thing I do recall was when my daughter's high school passed a rule forbidding performance of any religious songs at the winter concert. It was one of the few times I went to the Board meeting and the point I made was that the purpose of the school was to educate, and music education of western music could not be effectively done when all religious compositions were ignored--some of the greatest western music was composed for religious celebrations and festivals and, even if you don't celebrate them, you can learn much about music and performance from singing them; a good number of other parents (many of whom I believe were not Christians) and the music department teachers made similar arguments.

Honestly I did feel sorry for some of those raising their voices against it, but I also felt strongly that such music should not be excluded from he curriculum or performance. The Board ultimately voted to leave them in.

IMHO it was not done to marginalize Christian beliefs, but IMHO it was misguided by people who either felt legitimately on the outside or just wanted to flex their collective muscle.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't think that Romans are that shy, Big RR. It's the Feast of the Circumcision. Sounds yummy!

[wesw]

I don t see the tree and gifts as secular, I see it as a remembrance of my pagan/celtic/gaellic/scandanavian/germanic ancestry.

I see it as a symbol of community and sharing and survival that was practiced in the winters of my misty past

I don t really know, but that s how I see it

I like it and I don t think that jesus minds..., but I m often wrong.

[Big RR]

Meade--I never heard it called that, but I think now New Years day is the Feast of the Solemnity of Mary in the RC church--not sure about the orthodox churches. And I don't know of any protestant churches that celebrate new years day as a day of religious significance.

As for being Yummy, I went to a birs once and we got sponge cake after it was done--that was relatively yummy.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Maybe LJ knows? I got the info from

The Catholic Encyclopedia
Help support New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03779a.htm

It is to be noted also that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not forgotten in the festivities of the holy season, and the Mass in her honour was sometimes said on this day. Today, also, while in both Missal and Breviary the feast bears the title "In Circumcisione Domini et Octav Nativitatis", the prayers have special reference to the Blessed Virgin, and in the Office, the responses and antiphons set forth her privileges and extol her wonderful prerogatives. The psalms for Vespers are those appointed for her feasts, and the antiphons and hymn of Lauds keep her constantly in view. As paganism passed away the religious festivities of the Circumcision became more conspicuous and solemn; yet, even in the tenth century, Atto, Bishop of Vercelli, rebuked those who profaned the holy season by pagan dances, songs, and the lighting of lamps (P.L. CXXXIV, 43).

[[Tee hee - but maybe it proves your point anyway - Catholics aren't Christians...
(just kidding)]]

[Big RR]

Thanks; it does seem strange to me that a festival for the circumcision of the lord (if my translation of latin is good) is marked by prayers and readings, etc. dedicated to Mary, but I guess that's where the solemnity of mary reference comes.

[Sue U]

As for marginalizing Christians, one thing I do recall was when my daughter's high school passed a rule forbidding performance of any religious songs at the winter concert. It was one of the few times I went to the Board meeting and the point I made was that the purpose of the school was to educate, and music education of western music could not be effectively done when all religious compositions were ignored--some of the greatest western music was composed for religious celebrations and festivals and, even if you don't celebrate them, you can learn much about music and performance from singing them; a good number of other parents (many of whom I believe were not Christians) and the music department teachers made similar arguments.

Honestly I did feel sorry for some of those raising their voices against it, but I also felt strongly that such music should not be excluded from he curriculum or performance. The Board ultimately voted to leave them in.

IMHO it was not done to marginalize Christian beliefs, but IMHO it was misguided by people who either felt legitimately on the outside or just wanted to flex their collective muscle.

Schools often put themselves in a somewhat delicate position because, as public entities, they are constitutionally barred from engaging in activities that have the appearance of endorsing any religion, or preferring religion over non-religion. While it is certainly true that much great music was composed expressly for religious purposes, that doesn't give public entities any more latitude to use such religious texts than they would otherwise have in a classroom. If the purpose of the concert is educational, then there is nothing that prohibits their use. But if the performance is purely celebratory, it is going to be a close call at best and highly dependent on the context of the presentation. The school board was not wrong to want to stay well clear of a constitutional violation; there is plenty of purely secular seasonal music to fill an evening's program (in fact, I just attended one last week). Why is it necessary to include religious music in such an event in the first place?

Avoiding a constitutional violation is not in any way "marginalizing" Christians, but it is played that way by the right-wing punditocracy pandering to its easily outraged know-nothing base, which is apparently a profitable -- although hardly enlightening -- business model. It is a tiresome exercise for rational people to have to explain year-in and year-out what the First Amendment permits and prohibits in light of the Supreme Court's well-settled jurisprudence.

As for being Yummy, I went to a bris once and we got sponge cake after it was done--that was relatively yummy.

Do I really need to write the joke that goes here?

[TPFKA@W]

I love the idea of 2 Christmas'es'. But for economic reasons they really need to reschedule one of them.

[Bicycle Bill]

It is entirely a myth that any non-Christian takes offense at being wished a "merry Christmas" -- a myth ginned up by those who want to be offended that anyone should be offended, in service of their particular agenda(e) ("overbearing political correctness," "persecuted Christians," "war on Christmas," etc.).

Offended or not, Christian or not, whatever they may call it, they're still sure willing to take that day off with pay.

And as for the "war on Christmas":



-"BB"-

[Big RR]

Sue--don't get me wrong; I agree that public schools are in a different position than private businesses, but concerts are, IMHO, part of the music educational experience awarded (just as football games are part of the PE experience). I personally don't see a concert that students are forced to perform in (and which will negatively affect their grades if they do not) as anything but educational.

And enough about the sponge cake.

[Sue U]

The question is not whether concert performances are part of the music education experience for the students, but what a reasonable observer would conclude about the content/message/purpose of the performance for the public. Say the school music department presents Bach's Christmas Oratorio in a concert on December 18. It is undoubtedly a mainstay of the Western classical repertoire and a masterwork of Baroque choral composition, and therefore eminently worthy of study and performance. But could one conclude anything other than that this is a Christmas concert produced by a governmental entity in celebration of the Christian holiday?

There is a time and place for everything, but it is never proper to leverage the institutions of our explicitly secular government to promote or endorse a particular religion's holiday.

[TPFKA@W]

Jewish Christmas wisdom, something that has really gotten lost in the argument over the war on Christmas. It was delivered in a shiny secularized package (no mention of Jesus) and no one thought to have a fit over it at the time.

[MajGenl.Meade]

.. and there's another good argument for getting "the government" (or perhaps, the lawyers) out of the business of education.

It is clear to anyone with a modicum of language skills that singing any number of songs does not "establish" a religion, even if the entire Congress of the USA should happen to join together in the Hallelujah chorus on the steps of the Crittertol.

Nor is chanting "Away in a manger" (awful song) in any way remotely akin to "passing a law".

The Constitution was hijacked by secularist anti-Christian zealots a long time ago - and hardly anyone noticed.

What is legal in schools these days is atheism and ignorance, two elements that are not often conjoined