The War on Christmas

[lewisnotmiller]

Isn't it just as equally absurd to be offended over not being wished a Merry Christmas? To be offended over "Happy Holidays"? It is Christians who are throwing fits over this stuff. How many times do you see people getting upset because they weren't greeted with "Happy Chanukah" instead of "Happy Holidays"? Do you see Pagans in a tissy because they aren't hearing "Happy Yule"? No other religion is touting a "war" upon their holiday. Only Christians.

Hey, Draka? Happy Yule.

 

[Draka]

Hey, Draka? Happy Yule.

...Thank you and...blessings to you and yours in this season of giving.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The concept of lighting a tree during this time of year actually has meaning to particular paths. Can you say what meaning it has to Christmas? It's awful convenient to co-opt the practices of other religions into your holiday when you are trying to convince people they need to convert. They even celebrate it on the wrong day entirely. Unless, that is, they want to admit it is actually more Earth religion driven in nature than their own particular mythology.

http://www.fisheaters.com/customschristmas1.html
I particularly like how this article puts it:
"Today the Christmas tree can be the symbol of the peace that Jesus brought, that must be re-established between God and human beings. Because it is evergreen, it is the symbol of that immortality which Jesus said he possessed and would bring to us: "I am the life; those who believe in me even if they die will live". The tree lit by little lights is the symbol of the light that Jesus brought to the world with his birth: "He was the light that shines in the darkness... and enlightens every man..." (cf. Jn 1:4-14). And finally, the fir tree, with its tip pointing to heaven, indicates God's presence to us and the place where we are all awaited.
All this endows the Christmas tree, in harmony with the crib, with the religious and Christian significance of salvation that the Son of God brought to the whole world by his humble birth"
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6304
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=34135

Point being though was that supposedly "it's been called Christmas for a long time". As if it has some original claim on the season. That it is the premiere holiday of the season. It might be the biggest celebrated in certain regions, but that does not mean it has priority claim.

I find that you're being a bit hypocritical in that you seem to be saying that pre-Christian cultures somehow have an exclusive claim to using trees in religious and/or seasonal celebrations. No one has exclusive claims to things like trees or other things used as symbols.

I'm not claiming Christmas has priority claim to all, but it does to me as a Christian. You, and everyone else, can celebrate what you wish. Or not celebrate anything. I really don't care what society at large does because it has no impact on me that I don't allow it to have.

 

[Draka]

http://www.fisheaters.com/customschristmas1.html
I particularly like how this article puts it:
"Today the Christmas tree can be the symbol of the peace that Jesus brought, that must be re-established between God and human beings. Because it is evergreen, it is the symbol of that immortality which Jesus said he possessed and would bring to us: "I am the life; those who believe in me even if they die will live". The tree lit by little lights is the symbol of the light that Jesus brought to the world with his birth: "He was the light that shines in the darkness... and enlightens every man..." (cf. Jn 1:4-14). And finally, the fir tree, with its tip pointing to heaven, indicates God's presence to us and the place where we are all awaited.
All this endows the Christmas tree, in harmony with the crib, with the religious and Christian significance of salvation that the Son of God brought to the whole world by his humble birth"
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6304
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=34135


I find that you're being a bit hypocritical in that you seem to be saying that pre-Christian cultures somehow have an exclusive claim to using trees in religious and/or seasonal celebrations. No one has exclusive claims to things like trees or other things used as symbols.

I'm not claiming Christmas has priority claim to all, but it does to me as a Christian. You, and everyone else, can celebrate what you wish. Or not celebrate anything. I really don't care what society at large does because it has no impact on me that I don't allow it to have.

I was addressing the previous point. I'm not claiming anyone has exclusive rights to anything, but I'm also not deluded enough in thinking that many Christmas symbols weren't co-opted. That whole "reasoning" for the tree in Christmas sounds very stretched to fit by the way. And, didn't know you were Christian this week. Hard to keep up.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I was addressing the previous point. I'm not claiming anyone has exclusive rights to anything, but I'm also not deluded enough in thinking that many Christmas symbols weren't co-opted. That whole "reasoning" for the tree in Christmas sounds very stretched to fit by the way. And, didn't know you were Christian this week. Hard to keep up.

You can think whatever you want. I explained to you some of what it means to us. If you want to continue having a chip on your shoulder over a religion you don't believe in using an evergreen tree or disparage its meaning to us, that's your choice but I think it's irrational, personally, as well as lacking in global and historical perspective - namely, that cultures always mix and "co-opt" (your term for it, not mine) aspects of each other. I didn't realize fir and spruce trees were patented.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's silly. It's been called Christmas for a very long time, and the ''extra'' trappings are from various cultures, that simply added other decorations, etc., to the Christmas celebration.

It's been called Jul (Yule) in Sweden for a couple of hundred years. It has never been called Kristus Massa (Christ-mass).

It was called Saturnalia in the Roman empire 2,000 years ago.

So, in some areas there would have been a tree, in other areas, not.....just examine your logic for a moment. Christmas is celebrated in areas that didn't have ''Yule'', or ''Saturnalia'', yet have the same standard holiday................hmmmmm............

The "standard" was enforced by the church in Europe, and then, the past 100 years by the corporations.

Just because it's been called "Christmas" as long as you've been alive, doesn't mean that this is what it's been called through history. Check into the history of the "Yule" word.

So in the name of Jul, I'm going to wish you a merry Christmas in Swedish: Good Jul och Gott Nytt Ar.

 

[Draka]

You can think whatever you want. I explained to you some of what it means to us. If you want to continue having a chip on your shoulder over a religion you don't believe in using an evergreen tree or disparage its meaning to us, that's your choice but I think it's irrational, personally, as well as lacking in global and historical perspective - namely, that cultures always mix and "co-opt" (your term for it, not mine) aspects of each other. I didn't realize fir and spruce trees were patented.

Stating facts does not indicate a chip over any religion. Having to state them over and over indicates an annoyance with those unwilling to learn. Believe what you want. Most people do.

 

[girlchristian]

Isn't it just as equally absurd to be offended over not being wished a Merry Christmas? To be offended over "Happy Holidays"? It is Christians who are throwing fits over this stuff. How many times do you see people getting upset because they weren't greeted with "Happy Chanukah" instead of "Happy Holidays"? Do you see Pagans in a tissy because they aren't hearing "Happy Yule"? No other religion is touting a "war" upon their holiday. Only Christians.

Yes and I already said as such.

 

[Draka]

Yes and I already said as such.

So then, there isn't any attack or "war" upon Christmas at all then right? It is just people getting offended over trivial things. Correct?

 

[jonathan180iq]

http://www.fisheaters.com/customschristmas1.html
I particularly like how this article puts it:
"Today the Christmas tree can be the symbol of the peace that Jesus brought, that must be re-established between God and human beings. Because it is evergreen, it is the symbol of that immortality which Jesus said he possessed and would bring to us: "I am the life; those who believe in me even if they die will live". The tree lit by little lights is the symbol of the light that Jesus brought to the world with his birth: "He was the light that shines in the darkness... and enlightens every man..." (cf. Jn 1:4-14). And finally, the fir tree, with its tip pointing to heaven, indicates God's presence to us and the place where we are all awaited.
All this endows the Christmas tree, in harmony with the crib, with the religious and Christian significance of salvation that the Son of God brought to the whole world by his humble birth"

In all fairness, you can see how even the writing of this article makes it an afterthought, right? They're having to come up with explanations of how and why the "Christmas Tree" fits into to their religious beliefs. They're literally just making up an explanation to justify the continued use of such holiday symbols as part of their religious mentality. That proves right there that Draka is right in suggesting that all of these symbols predate the Christian observance of the season. Now, I do think you're right in saying that this doesn't mean that it's nefarious. But levels of nefarity don't change the fact that one religious practice is having to grandfather-in preChristian symbols because they've recognized that they're pretty much stuck with them.

 

[metis]

Who cares what the society at large does. If you're a Christian, it shouldn't matter. Let society be greedy and consumerist. Let it be vapid and stupid. Let the morons trample each other over meaningless trinkets. That is their choice to make. But, in your heart, know what Christmas is really about to you. What stores and such choose to do has no bearing on your religious practice or going to church services to celebrate the coming of Christ. Listen to religious Advent and Christmas music, read religious writings about this holy season, watch Christmas specials on TV, etc. Society in general has no bearing on your enjoyment and sense of meaning in those things.

Even though I'm not a Christian, I can still very much appreciate the wisdom of the above.

 

[metis]

AHH, so if a group ASKS to be included then that's when they matter? If they don't ask, it's okay to exclude a group?

According to the SCOTUS, yes. However, local communities can on their own be more inclusive, as I think they should be.

So, do you disagree with the SCOTUS and or what I wrote above? If so, what do you propose?

 

[Draka]

There are many times that local governments have taken down Christmas decorations simply because another religion has requested that they have some decorations as well. So unwilling to allow any representation of any other religion they would rather say no one can rather than acknowledge another faith's holiday. That is when it is an issue. If a place is unwilling to allow equal and free representation of any religion then they should not allow even one religion representation.

My city has a "Holiday Nights and Lights" display in one of our larger parks. Something to drive through to see the lit up displays. Not only do you see Santa and Nativity scenes, but there are many other displays as well. "Old man winter", a menorah, trees, even butterflies, and just various others things all winding through the park. The displays range between just pretty generic things and displays of things from various religions. They keep adding new things every year. Now, if the only things they were going to display were Christmas related specifically then there would be an issue, but as they allow for various displays then it isn't really a problem. Plus it's really pretty to boot.

 

[leibowde84]

Just as absurd as being offended by the presences of the word Christmas, don't you think?

The stores are doing it to be more inclusive. Who is complaining about seeing the word "Christmas". From my experience with this issue, the intent is not to get rid of references to Christmas BECAUSE they are offensive. The intent is to use more inclusive slogans as to not "turn-off" non-Christians in any way. I am a Christian, but I am 100% in favor of stores using "Happy Holidays" instead. It's not like they are going to have a list of messages for each faith, as that would be absurd. Thus, they pick something that applies to all holidays equally. How can you have a problem with that?

 

[metis]

There are many times that local governments have taken down Christmas decorations simply because another religion has requested that they have some decorations as well. So unwilling to allow any representation of any other religion they would rather say no one can rather than acknowledge another faith's holiday. That is when it is an issue. If a place is unwilling to allow equal and free representation of any religion then they should not allow even one religion representation.

My city has a "Holiday Nights and Lights" display in one of our larger parks. Something to drive through to see the lit up displays. Not only do you see Santa and Nativity scenes, but there are many other displays as well. "Old man winter", a menorah, trees, even butterflies, and just various others things all winding through the park. The displays range between just pretty generic things and displays of things from various religions. They keep adding new things every year. Now, if the only things they were going to display were Christmas related specifically then there would be an issue, but as they allow for various displays then it isn't really a problem. Plus it's really pretty to boot.

The city I live in for 2/3 of the year was one of the cases that the SCOTUS made its decision on in these regards. The city was taken to court because it only contained Christmas displays in front of city hall and also in the medium on a road that is the oldest main road in the city, and requests to expand it to some other religions was rejected by the city. Those who protested the city on this won, but the decision was sorta weird as the SCOTUS agreed with a lower court decision that Santa and the Christmas trees were "secular" representations. However, like in your example, the city at first banned all holiday displays for the first couple of years but then finally caved in to public pressure-- and the city survived!

Here, we haven't had any insistence on atheistic displays as far as I know, but other court decisions have opened that door as well.

 

[girlchristian]

So then, there isn't any attack or "war" upon Christmas at all then right? It is just people getting offended over trivial things. Correct?

I already said there was no war on Christmas specifically. I also stated that the move to be 'celebrate/acknowledge all or none' is stupid.

 

[girlchristian]

The stores are doing it to be more inclusive. Who is complaining about seeing the word "Christmas". From my experience with this issue, the intent is not to get rid of references to Christmas BECAUSE they are offensive. The intent is to use more inclusive slogans as to not "turn-off" non-Christians in any way. I am a Christian, but I am 100% in favor of stores using "Happy Holidays" instead. It's not like they are going to have a list of messages for each faith, as that would be absurd. Thus, they pick something that applies to all holidays equally. How can you have a problem with that?

I don't have a problem with it, I just also think it's ridiculous. The move to "Happy Holidays" versus "Merry Christmas" happened because people complained that "Merry Christmas" was offensive because it left them out and, that, I think is stupid. If a person finds offense in being wished a Merry Christmas at Macy's instead of Happy Holidays, then, IMO, they need to get a life.

 

[girlchristian]

The city I live in for 2/3 of the year was one of the cases that the SCOTUS made its decision on in these regards. The city was taken to court because it only contained Christmas displays in front of city hall and also in the medium on a road that is the oldest main road in the city, and requests to expand it to some other religions was rejected by the city. Those who protested the city on this won, but the decision was sorta weird as the SCOTUS agreed with a lower court decision that Santa and the Christmas trees were "secular" representations. However, like in your example, the city at first banned all holiday displays for the first couple of years but then finally caved in to public pressure-- and the city survived!

Here, we haven't had any insistence on atheistic displays as far as I know, but other court decisions have opened that door as well.

I think the problem comes down to how many displays can you allow? Can you allow 14 holiday displays in front of City Hall or is it easier to just allow none? Personally, I don't think any one religion should be represented on gov't property, but I also get that the rule to allow all or none complicates things and makes it far easier for cities and gov'ts to just say no to any, which I don't think represents well either.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't have a problem with it, I just also think it's ridiculous. The move to "Happy Holidays" versus "Merry Christmas" happened because people complained that "Merry Christmas" was offensive because it left them out and, that, I think is stupid.

Can you support this claim that this was the reasoning? I was not aware that it was due to complaints. I thought it was proactive.

 

[averageJOE]

I don't have a problem with it, I just also think it's ridiculous. The move to "Happy Holidays" versus "Merry Christmas" happened because people complained that "Merry Christmas" was offensive because it left them out and, that, I think is stupid. If a person finds offense in being wished a Merry Christmas at Macy's instead of Happy Holidays, then, IMO, they need to get a life.

Can you please provide evidence that the term "merry christmas" is offending people?