Trump
- Isabeau - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:01pm
Name My Band
- Isabeau - Apr 17, 2024 - 12:54pm
Israel
- R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 11:55am
Science in the News
- Red_Dragon - Apr 17, 2024 - 11:14am
Magic Eye optical Illusions
- Proclivities - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:08am
Ukraine
- kurtster - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:05am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:38am
April 2024 Photo Theme - Happenstance
- Alchemist - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:32am
Song of the Day
- black321 - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:25am
Just for the Haiku of it. . .
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:01am
HALF A WORLD
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:52am
NYTimes Connections
- Bill_J - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:48am
NY Times Strands
- Bill_J - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:45am
Radio Paradise Comments
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:42am
Wordle - daily game
- geoff_morphini - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:29am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:24am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 9:08pm
Little known information... maybe even facts
- R_P - Apr 16, 2024 - 3:29pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 16, 2024 - 2:36pm
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:56am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:20am
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:10am
WTF??!!
- rgio - Apr 16, 2024 - 5:23am
Australia has Disappeared
- haresfur - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:58am
Earthquake
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:46am
It's the economy stupid.
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:28am
TV shows you watch
- Manbird - Apr 15, 2024 - 7:28pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- Manbird - Apr 15, 2024 - 7:17pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - Apr 15, 2024 - 2:06pm
Republican Party
- Isabeau - Apr 15, 2024 - 12:12pm
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:59am
Eclectic Sound-Drops
- thisbody - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:27am
Synchronization
- ReggieDXB - Apr 13, 2024 - 11:40pm
Other Medical Stuff
- geoff_morphini - Apr 13, 2024 - 7:54am
What Did You See Today?
- Steely_D - Apr 13, 2024 - 6:42am
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:50pm
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:05pm
Poetry Forum
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:45am
Dear Bill
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:16am
Radio Paradise in Foobar2000
- gvajda - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:53pm
The Obituary Page
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 11, 2024 - 2:33pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - Apr 11, 2024 - 8:29am
Joe Biden
- black321 - Apr 11, 2024 - 7:43am
New Song Submissions system
- MayBaby - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:29am
No TuneIn Stream Lately
- kurtster - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:26pm
Caching to Apple watch quit working
- email-muri.0z - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:25pm
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse
- Alchemist - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:52am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- orrinc - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:48am
NPR Listeners: Is There Liberal Bias In Its Reporting?
- black321 - Apr 9, 2024 - 2:11pm
Sonos
- rnstory - Apr 9, 2024 - 10:43am
RP Windows Desktop Notification Applet
- gvajda - Apr 9, 2024 - 9:55am
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- kurtster - Apr 8, 2024 - 10:34am
And the good news is....
- thisbody - Apr 8, 2024 - 3:57am
How do I get songs into My Favorites
- Huey - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:29pm
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously
- R_P - Apr 7, 2024 - 5:14pm
Lyrics that strike a chord today...
- Isabeau - Apr 7, 2024 - 12:50pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:18am
Why is Mellow mix192kbps?
- dean2.athome - Apr 7, 2024 - 1:11am
Musky Mythology
- haresfur - Apr 6, 2024 - 7:11pm
China
- R_P - Apr 6, 2024 - 11:19am
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - Apr 5, 2024 - 12:45pm
Vega4 - Bullets
- nirgivon - Apr 5, 2024 - 11:50am
Europe
- thisbody - Apr 5, 2024 - 10:09am
Environment
- thisbody - Apr 5, 2024 - 9:37am
How's the weather?
- geoff_morphini - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands)
- Babylon - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
share song
- dkraybil - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
Love & Hate
- miamizsun - Apr 5, 2024 - 5:37am
iOS borked
- RPnate1 - Apr 4, 2024 - 2:13pm
Won't Load Full Page - Just Music (Canada)
- RPnate1 - Apr 4, 2024 - 2:13pm
Playlist Unwieldy
- darrenthackeray - Apr 4, 2024 - 12:09pm
Please Don't Post Here
- GeneP59 - Apr 4, 2024 - 7:20am
Breaking News
- thisbody - Apr 4, 2024 - 6:46am
Outstanding Covers
- islander - Apr 3, 2024 - 4:23pm
Baseball, anyone?
- Red_Dragon - Apr 3, 2024 - 3:54pm
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
RightWingNutZ
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 110, 111, 112 ... 169, 170, 171 Next |
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 10, 2010 - 5:03am |
|
buzz wrote:Why is there no movement among non-Christians to eliminate the federal holiday we celebrate on December 25?
That ship has sailed. Besides, several people have done it. Read the judge's response: A federal appeals court is considering arguments that Christmas should no longer be observed as a national legal holiday. During today’s hearing, a federal appeals judge asked Christmas opponent Richard Ganulin show how nonbelievers are harmed by the holiday. Philosophical or religious objections aren’t enough to support a lawsuit to scrap the holiday observance, Judge Boyce Martin Jr. said. “You don’t have to celebrate Christmas. You can ignore it,” Martin told Ganulin during a hearing in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “Sometimes, we must accept those tenets of others that we don’t necessarily agree with, in order to live in peace,” he said.
|
|
buzz
Location: up the boohai
|
Posted:
Dec 10, 2010 - 5:00am |
|
Why is there no movement among non-Christians to eliminate the federal holiday we celebrate on December 25?
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 10, 2010 - 4:56am |
|
winter wrote: I get that you're upset about what you see as the diminished public role of a cherished holiday, and the attacks on Christians and Christianity. Fair enough. I'm angry that in a nation that still struggles with widespread and institutionalized homophobia and xenophobia more people would vote for a gay or Muslim President than an atheist President - that they think as little of letting their kids marry atheists as previous generations did of letting them marry out of their race.
What I think you're missing is that if we make room for even an implied government endorsement of any one religion, we have to endorse them all equally. There's no playing favorites, no special reverence based on historical precedent or predominance, no decisions about what's a real religion and what's just some kooky cult. If we put up a Nativity scene on city property, there'd better be equally prominent displays for every other flavor of faith and faithlessness or it's just inconsistent and unjust. Bust out the menorahs, light up the Kwanzaa displays, and be sure Ashura gets its due. There'd better be Wiccan displays for Samhain and the solstices when they come around, to say nothing of a dignified commemoration of Ramadan and an appropriate recognition of non-theist values. There are religious festivals of some kind virtually every day of the year. Wait a minute - what about the Jehovah's Witnesses who don't think any of these should be celebrated? Do their rights, their votes, their tax dollars count any less than those differently-minded? Should they have to endure a slight to their beliefs from the government that claims to represent them, just because their beliefs are less popular or less historically entwined?
Of course not. That's why we have the strong high wall between church and state. Start where you will and walk where you choose, but when you stand before the law you're on the same ground as paupers, prelates, and politicians. Justice is the blind woman holding the scales, and if she peeks out or puts a thumb on for one group then she's been bought and paid for by the same coin of popular consensus that once tolerated slavery, racism, genocide, and religious persecution.
Yes, some of our founding documents reference God. They also reference slavery and make no allowance for women's suffrage. It hardly seems consistent to enshrine some of their views and reject others - surely these long-held traditions, lasting more than a couple of years and practiced by more than 51% of the population, ought still be the custom of the country, if not the law of the land? Or perhaps we have evolved as a people, reaching newer and better moral understandings, and our customs and laws ought to reflect our evolving enlightenment rather than the codified mistakes of our past? I don't think we should toss out every tradition, but a tradition that sets some beliefs and believers above others seems better broken than observed.
Yes, many of our Founding Fathers were religious. They were also mostly white men, mostly right-handed, and mostly of English descent. A lot of them wore wigs. Why should we refer to ourselves as "a Christian nation" and not "a white nation of right-handed Anglophile wig-wearers"? What gives their faith primacy instead of any other characteristic? Why revere their faith and wrap it around the roots of our collective heritage when there are a handy dozen other characteristics they shared?
I doubt very much that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Washington and the rest wanted us to hold them in such reverence as to accord their faith some special virtue apart from those inherent. They didn't fight so we could have the right to worship the same God they did. They didn't sacrifice so we could follow them like fops measuring the Emperor's hemlines. They didn't struggle so that two hundred years later we'd have come no further than this. I think they'd be disappointed to see that we thought there was any debate over whether the government should prefer Christianity over other forms of belief. I think they'd laugh bitterly to see such reverence for the forms of their day and so little regard for the ideas that shaped them.
You've mentioned the Arlington example several times. I've pointed out the distinction to you, and you've yet to address it with any counterargument more persuasive than simple insistence and repetition. Believe what you will, but calling that consistency betrays a sadly ironic misunderstanding of the concept.
But just so we're clear - the soldiers at Arlington (or their survivors) chose the symbols that mark their graves. They weren't assigned by the administrators at Arlington, and they weren't endorsed by Congressional committee or the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These were symbols meaningful to the men and women lying at long-deserved rest under them, and as Scott pointed out there are a variety of such symbols used at Arlington. The government endorses none of them and permits them all. It's a classic example of separation of church and state, one of the freedoms those brave men and women sacrificed so much to protect.
It's not that religious symbols are forbidden on government property. It's that having City Hall display a Nativity scene, or having Congress pause for prayer at the start of each session, or being required to make some show of faith or piety to hold office are all forms of government endorsement of particular forms of belief. Allowing every soldier, sailor, and serviceperson at Arlington to choose the symbol to mark their last resting place is the exact opposite of that.
Consistency would be recognizing that each form of belief has an equal standing in our society and under our laws. Consistency would be admitting all the faithful and faithless alike to participate as equals without prejudice. Consistency would be admitting no precedence to any form of belief.
I leave it to you to decide what sticking to the same talking points in defiance of fact, logic, and compassion should be called.
Well said, Winter
|
|
R_P
Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 10:49pm |
|
kurtster wrote:(...) Christianity does not provide for a political system as does Islam within its written dogma. One can even argue that with the Kosher Laws that Judaism does as well.
That depends largely, as always, on the interpretation of scripture by various sects. Unfortunately you cannot exclude your own Christian faith, however appealing it might be: Dominionism / Reconstructionism. Providing policy as to how lives should be lived is easily transformed into politics (as the long course of Western history easily bears out). Secularism (as meaning separating church affairs from those of the state) is a fairly recent invention in the scheme of things. Also the usual reply that such movements do not represent real/true Christians doesn't cut it. All sects tend to say that about one aspect or another, whether it's the virgin birth, sainthood, literalism, salvation, etc., etc.
|
|
winter
Location: in exile, as always Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 10:06pm |
|
kurtster wrote: At one time, Christmas was the most important Holiday in December to most Americans, more than 51% at least. That was the inherited traditions that were kept for more than a couple of years. Now we have a recently invented Holiday such as Kwanza added to this "Season".
And just what is Chritianity anyway, besides a belief in Christ as their Saviour ? There are so many different versions of Christianity. No one particular version is supported over another, nor has any ever. The idea that one version should be held superior as a State Religion over another version such as existed in England as well as the most of the rest of Europe was the religious reason for coming to America. European Monarch's held their throne based upon divine proclamation and thusly enforced their version as the kingdom's official religion. Spanish Inquisition anybody ? Colonies did have their official versions until the Constitution was ratified. Maryland's for example was Catholic. While there are many other religions in the world and were at the time of the colonization and construction of this country, Christianity was the driving force. The Constitution while not specific, was designed primarily to prevent an official specific version of Christianity from being adopted as the National Religion. The Constitution's openendedness has also made this country safe from any version of any religion from being made the official religion.
This country was founded with a universal belief in God as God is mentioned in our founding documents. These are our roots, there is no denying. No one was required to believe in God to be here after the Constitution was ratified. But this country was founded with a belief in a religious entity. It was how one interpreted the entity that was kept from taking precidence over another's. Nearly all of the original immigrants held Christmas for what it was and the Country celebrated it together. Pretty much that way until after WW II. More like the 60's really when the NYT pronounced that God was dead.
To me, to those that have no tolerance for a display of a cross on public property, than can only be zero tolerance on all public property in order to be consistant with that position.
Disclaimer, FWIW, I belong to no religious organization, nor do I attend church. I do however believe in a higher power and have experienced proof enough to me that what ever it is, it does exist and I acknowledge and accept it. I was raised a Christian and know for sure that Jesus was a real person. After that, I'm open to possibilities. I am offended that when the subject of Christians is brought up in the context of a debate, the most extreme versions are used to describe all who believe and participate. Pat Robertson and the Pope do not speak for all Christians anymore than the Reverand Wright or Jesse Jackson. Christianity does not provide for a political system as does Islam within its written dogma. One can even argue that with the Kosher Laws that Judaism does as well.
The very debate we are currently egaging in has only started in earnest since the NYT pronounced God is dead.
I get that you're upset about what you see as the diminished public role of a cherished holiday, and the attacks on Christians and Christianity. Fair enough. I'm angry that in a nation that still struggles with widespread and institutionalized homophobia and xenophobia more people would vote for a gay or Muslim President than an atheist President - that they think as little of letting their kids marry atheists as previous generations did of letting them marry out of their race. What I think you're missing is that if we make room for even an implied government endorsement of any one religion, we have to endorse them all equally. There's no playing favorites, no special reverence based on historical precedent or predominance, no decisions about what's a real religion and what's just some kooky cult. If we put up a Nativity scene on city property, there'd better be equally prominent displays for every other flavor of faith and faithlessness or it's just inconsistent and unjust. Bust out the menorahs, light up the Kwanzaa displays, and be sure Ashura gets its due. There'd better be Wiccan displays for Samhain and the solstices when they come around, to say nothing of a dignified commemoration of Ramadan and an appropriate recognition of non-theist values. There are religious festivals of some kind virtually every day of the year. Wait a minute - what about the Jehovah's Witnesses who don't think any of these should be celebrated? Do their rights, their votes, their tax dollars count any less than those differently-minded? Should they have to endure a slight to their beliefs from the government that claims to represent them, just because their beliefs are less popular or less historically entwined? Of course not. That's why we have the strong high wall between church and state. Start where you will and walk where you choose, but when you stand before the law you're on the same ground as paupers, prelates, and politicians. Justice is the blind woman holding the scales, and if she peeks out or puts a thumb on for one group then she's been bought and paid for by the same coin of popular consensus that once tolerated slavery, racism, genocide, and religious persecution. Yes, some of our founding documents reference God. They also reference slavery and make no allowance for women's suffrage. It hardly seems consistent to enshrine some of their views and reject others - surely these long-held traditions, lasting more than a couple of years and practiced by more than 51% of the population, ought still be the custom of the country, if not the law of the land? Or perhaps we have evolved as a people, reaching newer and better moral understandings, and our customs and laws ought to reflect our evolving enlightenment rather than the codified mistakes of our past? I don't think we should toss out every tradition, but a tradition that sets some beliefs and believers above others seems better broken than observed. Yes, many of our Founding Fathers were religious. They were also mostly white men, mostly right-handed, and mostly of English descent. A lot of them wore wigs. Why should we refer to ourselves as "a Christian nation" and not "a white nation of right-handed Anglophile wig-wearers"? What gives their faith primacy instead of any other characteristic? Why revere their faith and wrap it around the roots of our collective heritage when there are a handy dozen other characteristics they shared? I doubt very much that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Washington and the rest wanted us to hold them in such reverence as to accord their faith some special virtue apart from those inherent. They didn't fight so we could have the right to worship the same God they did. They didn't sacrifice so we could follow them like fops measuring the Emperor's hemlines. They didn't struggle so that two hundred years later we'd have come no further than this. I think they'd be disappointed to see that we thought there was any debate over whether the government should prefer Christianity over other forms of belief. I think they'd laugh bitterly to see such reverence for the forms of their day and so little regard for the ideas that shaped them. You've mentioned the Arlington example several times. I've pointed out the distinction to you, and you've yet to address it with any counterargument more persuasive than simple insistence and repetition. Believe what you will, but calling that consistency betrays a sadly ironic misunderstanding of the concept. But just so we're clear - the soldiers at Arlington (or their survivors) chose the symbols that mark their graves. They weren't assigned by the administrators at Arlington, and they weren't endorsed by Congressional committee or the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These were symbols meaningful to the men and women lying at long-deserved rest under them, and as Scott pointed out there are a variety of such symbols used at Arlington. The government endorses none of them and permits them all. It's a classic example of separation of church and state, one of the freedoms those brave men and women sacrificed so much to protect. It's not that religious symbols are forbidden on government property. It's that having City Hall display a Nativity scene, or having Congress pause for prayer at the start of each session, or being required to make some show of faith or piety to hold office are all forms of government endorsement of particular forms of belief. Allowing every soldier, sailor, and serviceperson at Arlington to choose the symbol to mark their last resting place is the exact opposite of that. Consistency would be recognizing that each form of belief has an equal standing in our society and under our laws. Consistency would be admitting all the faithful and faithless alike to participate as equals without prejudice. Consistency would be admitting no precedence to any form of belief. I leave it to you to decide what sticking to the same talking points in defiance of fact, logic, and compassion should be called.
|
|
R_P
Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 12:37pm |
|
It's actually " Sinterklaas" or of course St. Nicholas, (still) celebrated on December 5th/6th.
|
|
mzpro5
Location: Budda'spet, Hungry Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 12:34pm |
|
Proclivities wrote:That's an interesting article, Kurt. I remember learning about the distinctions and differences between the Dutch settlers of New Amsterdam and the English settlers in the other 12 colonies (particularly Massachusetts), but I didn't think that there was a marked disparity among the residents of those British colonies. Thanks everyone for the discussion. I didn't mean to imply in my OP that Christmas was not celebrated though after rereading it I can see how that interpretation may be made. It was mainly to make the point that the current way most people celebrate Christmas is a relatively new thing. As kurt and others have pointed out there were many different ways Christmas was (or was not) celebrated in many different places. To me our current customs are an amalgam of those traditions with a big dose of commercialism and marketing thrown in (ala the current interpretation of Santa Claus). Anyways celebrate in any manner you wish but may you have the spirit of Christmas in your heart regardless of how you celebrate..
|
|
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 12:13pm |
|
That's an interesting article, Kurt. I remember learning about the distinctions and differences between the Dutch settlers of New Amsterdam and the English settlers in the other 12 colonies (particularly Massachusetts), but I didn't think that there was a marked disparity among the residents of those British colonies.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 11:52am |
|
mzpro5 wrote:You may be aware of this kurt but Christmas was not really a big holiday until the 19th century and not officially a holiday until 1870. History does not support the bolded statement above and in fact the Puritans thought it was sacrilegious to celebrate Christmas. In England and the rest of Europe celebrating it was largely a day for the lower classes to blow off some steam. The current way we celebrate Christmas is largely a secular invention and most "Christmas traditions" have pagan antecedents.and were made a part of Christmas to entice pagans to become Christians. Celebration at the time of the creation of the USA were described by thomas Jefferson as "day of greatest mirth and jollity." not neccesarily a religious celebration. Some interesting things here: HISTORY OF CELEBRATING CHRISTMASFrom the above link: When English Puritan Oliver Cromwell came on the scene in 1645, he cancelled Christmas because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible and didn't meet his idea of a holy day. As a result, when the Puritans arrived in Massachusetts, the celebration of Christmas was illegal.
By the war of Independence, celebrations of the 12 days of Christmas were common. However, after the separation from England, European traditions were ignored. Christmas celebrations were no longer fashionable. December 25, 1789 was a working day for the new American Congress. Christmas didn't become a Federal holiday until 1870. Perhaps I should have used the word many instead of most in the sentence you highlighted in my post. Here's some relevant info. There were 13 Colonies with 13 distinct lifestyles, with Massachusetts being the most extremist of all the Colonies. Fortunately, evidently, my father's family went to Maine around 1640 and not Massachusetts Anyway, here's some things that happened outside of Massachusetts in terms of Christmas in Early America. This only reinforces my main point about there being many versions of Christianity and the primary purpose of the seperation clause was to prohibit one particular version of Christianity being adopted over another, as well as any other religion.
Early Colonial settlers included the Puritans in New England to the Dutch in New Amsterdam, and the English Anglicans and Catholics in the Mid Atlantic colonies. Each of these areas celebrated (or didn't celebrate) Christmas in their own unique way. Out of these Colonial Christmas customs came the modern Christmas traditions we know today. How the Puritans (almost) stole ChristmasFollowing the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century, new religious sects sprang up in England based on the strict teachings of John Calvin and John Knox. At the same the Church of England was established, giving way to a form of Protestantism that was not as strict as the other "puritan" groups. Following the rise of Oliver Cromwell and his "roundheads" in 1642, Christmas festivities, considered a "heathen practice" were outlawed, including singing Christmas carols, nativity scenes and any other obvious attempts at celebration. Puritans arriving in Massachusetts during the 17th Century brought this same disdain for Christmas with them. While Thanksgiving was an acceptable holiday in New England, Christmas certainly was not. In 1620, Governor William Bradford forbid any of the Pilgrims to observe the holiday. Instead, he noted that they felled trees and worked on building houses. Business as usual. Persecution of Christmas persisted through the 17th century. Caroling, games and even mince pies, considered a vulgar holiday luxury, were all outlawed. Despite its Spartan beginnings, New England did have many people who celebrated Christmas, especially as more and more settlers began arriving from Europe through the 17th and 18th Centuries. This trend is apparent in 1686 by a repeal of a 1659 law that fined people five shillings for feasting or any other perceived merriment on December 25th. Despite People's growing acceptance of Christmas, it wasn't made an official holiday in New England until the 1856. The Dutch & Sinter KlassIn 1604, the Dutch East India Company sent a group of Dutch settlers to the newly established colony of New Amsterdam (now New York City). Unlike their Puritan counterparts, the Dutch Protestants celebrated Christmas with much merriment. Especially important was Saint Nicholas' Day on December 6th. Saint Nicholas, nicknamed Sinter Klass, was eagerly anticipated by Dutch settlers children. He arrived via a toy laden ship from the mother country just in time for his Saint Day celebration, each year. Following the take over of New Amsterdam by the British, Sinter Klass was joined by another gift bearer, the English Father Christmas. Together they gradually melded together to form our modern day Santa Clause. Christmas in the Mid Atlantic ColoniesUnlike their northern neighbors, settlers in the mid Atlantic colonies celebrated Christmas just as they had in Merry Old England. Captain John Smith (of Pocahontas fame) celebrated one of the earliest Christmases in Virginia by feasting on wild game, oysters and fish. As the colonies of the mid Atlantic became more established, Christmas grew more elaborate. Colonists decorated their homes with lavish greenery, held great feasts, sang carols and played games. A traditional Yule log was burned and affluent families held Christmas balls. Other Colonial Christmas CustomsReligious persecution in Eastern Europe during the 18th Century brought an influx of immigrants from Bohemia and Moravia, who settled in what is now Bethlehem Pennsylvania and Salem, North Carolina. These groups brought several distinct Christmas customs with them, including a Putz, or nativity scene and the introduction of the first candlelight church service.
****:CHRISTMAS IN EARLY AMERICACaptain John Smith, on one of his exploring expeditions, wrote an account of what was probably the first Christmas celebrated in this country: "The extreme winde, rayne, frost and snow caused us to keep Christmas among the savages where we were never more merry, nor feed on more plenty of good Oysters, Fish, Flesh, Wilde Fowl and good bread, nor never had better fires in England. " In 1621, Governor Bradford's diary records that "on the day called Christmas", their first at Plymouth, the Pilgrims were called out to work as usual but some of them said it went against their consciences and, instead, played games such as "stool-ball" and "pitching the bar". The Puritans, more bigoted, did not believe December 25 was the date of the Nativity, prohibited any "pagan revelry", and in 1659 enacted a law in Massachusetts which provided that "Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like... shall be subjected to a fine of five shillings". It was not until the middle of the last century that Christmas became a day of gift-giving, Christmas trees and a general festivity in New England or among those "Yankees" who first settled the Chicago region and northern Illinois. The fun-loving Dutch colonists of New .Amsterdam, although they observed Christmas with church services, carols and quiet family gatherings, made it their principal holiday when "Sint Klass" (St. Nicholas) came on his white horse to fill the children's stockings. In our southern colonies there was much visiting between plantations, feasting, dancing and fireworks, with a "Christmas gift" to every servant and a holiday as long as the huge Yule log burned. The Christmas tree was introduced during the War of the Revolution by the Hessian soldiers who later founded communities of "Pennsylvania Dutch". The names Kriss-Kringle — a misunderstanding of their German word for the Christ-child — St. Nicholas and Santa Claus, did not become generally applied to the children's patron saint until the 1820's and 1830's. Other old-country customs were brought here by the Scandinavians, the Italians, the Slaves and other nationalities who have added flavor to America's "Melting Pot". Christmas in Early America
In America's early years, the celebration of Christmas was a subject of heated debate among Christians, and the lines between the opposing views were drawn largely according to church affiliation. Those from the High Church (e.g., Anglicans, Catholics, Episcopalians, etc., which practiced a more formal tradition of worship), tended to support Christmas celebrations, while those from the Low Church (e.g., Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, etc., which practiced a more informal mode of worship), tended to oppose that celebration. The views of the two sides had largely been shaped by their own history in Europe. For example, the High Church, which had been the church of Europe for centuries before the first colonists came to America, celebrated Christmas. However, those from the Low Church had been persecuted by the High Church, particularly by the Catholic and Anglican Church, so the Low Church saw no reason that they should copy the festival of those that had so harshly persecuted them. Interestingly, when European colonists came to America, those affiliated with the High Churches tended to settle in southern colonies such as Virginia, Maryland, and Carolina, while colonists from the Low Churches more frequently settled in northern colonies such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Virginia colony- affiliated with the Anglican Church- began celebrating Christmas from its very beginnings under Governor John Smith, but the Pilgrims and Puritans of Massachusetts- affiliated with the Congregational Church- refused to celebrate that day. In fact, their opposition to Christmas was so strong that for almost two centuries in Massachusetts, Christmas celebrations were not only discouraged but even forbidden by law.
|
|
beamends
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 10:16am |
|
mzpro5 wrote: In 1656 Christmas was basically a religious celebration. The things we associate with celebrating Christmas, such as a Christmas tree (though in certain cultures around for centuries only became popular after Queen Victoria's husband Albert had one in the palace) are from the 19th century forward. Dickens' writings had a lot to do with popularizing many Christmas traditions also.
But, importantly, it was one of a very few days off work at that time Holy Days were the only holidays (hence the name) and attending church on a Sunday was done between work - the plebs didn't get Sundays off 'properly' until the Industrial Revolution. Not having to go to church meant there was more time to 'celebrate' the pagan midwinter festival, with exciting things like chasing and killing a robin (no idea why they did that), going round people houses and leaving a lump of coal, and getting pissed etc, stuff that predated the Dickens version of Christmas and Christianity. Christianity absorbed an lot of pagan traditions and re-branded them, just as is happening in third world countries today, so 'Christmas' had been well established for centuries though under different branding - 'Mid Winter' etc.
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 10:07am |
|
islander wrote:Oh man, if ever there was a need for an "e-mail me when this gets followed up" link this is it. I know - bug reports and feature requests.... But I've got popcorn to make, Winter is working on a rant.
And with that, I need to go back to work too.
Get there early for a front row seat...
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 10:00am |
|
winter wrote: kurtster wrote: At one time, Christmas was the most important Holiday in December to most Americans, more than 51% at least. That was the inherited traditions that were kept for more than a couple of years. Now we have a recently invented Holiday such as Kwanza added to this "Season".
And just what is Chritianity anyway, besides a belief in Christ as their Saviour ? There are so many different versions of Christianity. No one particular version is supported over another, nor has any ever. The idea that one version should be held superior as a State Religion over another version such as existed in England as well as the most of the rest of Europe was the religious reason for coming to America. European Monarch's held their throne based upon divine proclamation and thusly enforced their version as the kingdom's official religion. Spanish Inquisition anybody ? Colonies did have their official versions until the Constitution was ratified. Maryland's for example was Catholic. While there are many other religions in the world and were at the time of the colonization and construction of this country, Christianity was the driving force. The Constitution while not specific, was designed primarily to prevent an official specific version of Christianity from being adopted as the National Religion. The Constitution's openendedness has also made this country safe from any version of any religion from being made the official religion.
This country was founded with a universal belief in God as God is mentioned in our founding documents. These are our roots, there is no denying. No one was required to believe in God to be here after the Constitution was ratified. But this country was founded with a belief in a religious entity. It was how one interpreted the entity that was kept from taking precidence over another's. Nearly all of the original immigrants held Christmas for what it was and the Country celebrated it together. Pretty much that way until after WW II. More like the 60's really when the NYT pronounced that God was dead.
To me, to those that have no tolerance for a display of a cross on public property, than can only be zero tolerance on all public property in order to be consistant with that position.
Disclaimer, FWIW, I belong to no religious organization, nor do I attend church. I do however believe in a higher power and have experienced proof enough to me that what ever it is, it does exist and I acknowledge and accept it. I was raised a Christian and know for sure that Jesus was a real person. After that, I'm open to possibilities. I am offended that when the subject of Christians is brought up in the context of a debate, the most extreme versions are used to describe all who believe and participate. Pat Robertson and the Pope do not speak for all Christians anymore than the Reverand Wright or Jesse Jackson. Christianity does not provide for a political system as does Islam within its written dogma. One can even argue that with the Kosher Laws that Judaism does as well.
The very debate we are currently egaging in has only started in earnest since the NYT pronounced God is dead.
As much as I hate to leave a good "most of us dig God and the rest of you can suck it" rant unchallenged for even a few hours, I have to work today. Consider this a kind of place marker. Oh man, if ever there was a need for an "e-mail me when this gets followed up" link this is it. I know - bug reports and feature requests.... But I've got popcorn to make, Winter is working on a rant. And with that, I need to go back to work too.
|
|
mzpro5
Location: Budda'spet, Hungry Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 9:53am |
|
beamends wrote: Well, yes, ok, point taken - if you are talking worshiping Christmas, rather just 'doing' Christmas. Most assume banning Christmas means the whole thing, not just the religious bit, which was never enacted - the 1656 bit, as I read it, being about banning the whole Christmas thing because people were probably more than happy to skip church.
In 1656 Christmas was basically a religious celebration. The things we associate with celebrating Christmas, such as a Christmas tree (though in certain cultures around for centuries only became popular after Queen Victoria's husband Albert had one in the palace) are from the 19th century forward. Dickens' writings had a lot to do with popularizing many Christmas traditions also.
|
|
sirdroseph
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 9:26am |
|
Proclivities wrote:I have never seen any evidence that The New York Times ever made a pronouncement that "God Is Dead". That is a pretty much a myth - or at least a gross exaggeration - attributable mostly to Elton John and Bernie Taupin's "Levon". It has been continually used as a major piece of disinformation by religious zealots and right-wing deceivers since then. Time Magazine had a cover story titled "Is God Dead?" which was mainly about the "God Is Dead" movement and a then-proponent of it, Thomas J. J. Altizer, a professor of religion at Atlanta's Emory University. The New York Times had an article about a "liturgical form the experience of the 'death of God' in a denominational college in the South" (Emory University as well, IIRC) in 1966 - well into the newspaper - in the 'Help Wanted' pages. That article was titled "God Is Dead", but it is hardly a pronouncement of such, and appeared nowhere near the front page or the Op-Ed page. You are right, God is not dead, but his team of lawyers have issued a mass mailing of restraining orders to zealots and fundamentalists of all religions, God vants to be left alone!
|
|
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 7:59am |
|
kurtster wrote: The very debate we are currently egaging in has only started in earnest since the NYT pronounced God is dead.
I have never seen any evidence that The New York Times ever made a pronouncement that "God Is Dead". That is a pretty much a myth - or at least a gross exaggeration - attributable mostly to Elton John and Bernie Taupin's "Levon". It has been continually used as a major piece of disinformation by religious zealots and right-wing deceivers since then. Time Magazine had a cover story titled "Is God Dead?" which was mainly about the "God Is Dead" movement and a then-proponent of it, Thomas J. J. Altizer, a professor of religion at Atlanta's Emory University. The New York Times had an article about a "liturgical form the experience of the 'death of God' in a denominational college in the South" (Emory University as well, IIRC) in 1966 - well into the newspaper - in the 'Help Wanted' pages. That article was titled "God Is Dead", but it is hardly a pronouncement of such, and appeared nowhere near the front page or the Op-Ed page.
|
|
winter
Location: in exile, as always Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 7:50am |
|
kurtster wrote: At one time, Christmas was the most important Holiday in December to most Americans, more than 51% at least. That was the inherited traditions that were kept for more than a couple of years. Now we have a recently invented Holiday such as Kwanza added to this "Season".
And just what is Chritianity anyway, besides a belief in Christ as their Saviour ? There are so many different versions of Christianity. No one particular version is supported over another, nor has any ever. The idea that one version should be held superior as a State Religion over another version such as existed in England as well as the most of the rest of Europe was the religious reason for coming to America. European Monarch's held their throne based upon divine proclamation and thusly enforced their version as the kingdom's official religion. Spanish Inquisition anybody ? Colonies did have their official versions until the Constitution was ratified. Maryland's for example was Catholic. While there are many other religions in the world and were at the time of the colonization and construction of this country, Christianity was the driving force. The Constitution while not specific, was designed primarily to prevent an official specific version of Christianity from being adopted as the National Religion. The Constitution's openendedness has also made this country safe from any version of any religion from being made the official religion.
This country was founded with a universal belief in God as God is mentioned in our founding documents. These are our roots, there is no denying. No one was required to believe in God to be here after the Constitution was ratified. But this country was founded with a belief in a religious entity. It was how one interpreted the entity that was kept from taking precidence over another's. Nearly all of the original immigrants held Christmas for what it was and the Country celebrated it together. Pretty much that way until after WW II. More like the 60's really when the NYT pronounced that God was dead.
To me, to those that have no tolerance for a display of a cross on public property, than can only be zero tolerance on all public property in order to be consistant with that position.
Disclaimer, FWIW, I belong to no religious organization, nor do I attend church. I do however believe in a higher power and have experienced proof enough to me that what ever it is, it does exist and I acknowledge and accept it. I was raised a Christian and know for sure that Jesus was a real person. After that, I'm open to possibilities. I am offended that when the subject of Christians is brought up in the context of a debate, the most extreme versions are used to describe all who believe and participate. Pat Robertson and the Pope do not speak for all Christians anymore than the Reverand Wright or Jesse Jackson. Christianity does not provide for a political system as does Islam within its written dogma. One can even argue that with the Kosher Laws that Judaism does as well.
The very debate we are currently egaging in has only started in earnest since the NYT pronounced God is dead.
As much as I hate to leave a good "most of us dig God and the rest of you can suck it" rant unchallenged for even a few hours, I have to work today. Consider this a kind of place marker.
|
|
beamends
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 7:35am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: From your link, it was actually illegal but the law was of course difficult to enforce: - Parliamentary legislation adopting the Directory of Public Worship, initially as one of several forms which could be followed in England and Wales, but then as the only form which was legal and was to be allowed, abolishing and making illegal any other forms of worship and church services, therefore prohibited (on paper at least) the religious celebration of all other holy days, including Christmas. In June 1647 the Long Parliament reiterated this by passing an Ordinance confirming the abolition of the feasts of Christmas, Easter and Whitsun
- Specific penalties were to be imposed on anyone found holding or attending a special Christmas church service, it was ordered that shops and markets were to stay open on 25 December, the Lord Mayor was repeatedly ordered to ensure that London stayed open for business on 25 December, and when it met on 25 December 1656 the second Protectorate Parliament discussed the virtues of passing further legislation clamping down on the celebration of Christmas (though no Bill was, in fact, produced).
- Although in theory and on paper the celebration of Christmas had been abolished, in practice it seems that many people continued to mark 25 December as a day of religious significance and as a secular holiday. Semi-clandestine religious services marking Christ’s nativity continued to be held on 25 December, and the secular elements of the day also continued to occur
Well, yes, ok, point taken - if you are talking worshiping Christmas, rather just 'doing' Christmas. Most assume banning Christmas means the whole thing, not just the religious bit, which was never enacted - the 1656 bit, as I read it, being about banning the whole Christmas thing because people were probably more than happy to skip church.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 7:22am |
|
beamends wrote: From your link, it was actually illegal but the law was of course difficult to enforce: - Parliamentary legislation adopting the Directory of Public Worship, initially as one of several forms which could be followed in England and Wales, but then as the only form which was legal and was to be allowed, abolishing and making illegal any other forms of worship and church services, therefore prohibited (on paper at least) the religious celebration of all other holy days, including Christmas. In June 1647 the Long Parliament reiterated this by passing an Ordinance confirming the abolition of the feasts of Christmas, Easter and Whitsun
- Specific penalties were to be imposed on anyone found holding or attending a special Christmas church service, it was ordered that shops and markets were to stay open on 25 December, the Lord Mayor was repeatedly ordered to ensure that London stayed open for business on 25 December, and when it met on 25 December 1656 the second Protectorate Parliament discussed the virtues of passing further legislation clamping down on the celebration of Christmas (though no Bill was, in fact, produced).
- Although in theory and on paper the celebration of Christmas had been abolished, in practice it seems that many people continued to mark 25 December as a day of religious significance and as a secular holiday. Semi-clandestine religious services marking Christ’s nativity continued to be held on 25 December, and the secular elements of the day also continued to occur
|
|
beamends
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 7:06am |
|
mzpro5 wrote:You may be aware of this kurt but Christmas was not really a big holiday until the 19th century and not officially a holiday until 1870. History does not support the bolded statement above and in fact the Puritans thought it was sacrilegious to celebrate Christmas. In England and the rest of Europe celebrating it was largely a day for the lower classes to blow off some steam. The current way we celebrate Christmas is largely a secular invention and most "Christmas traditions" have pagan antecedents.and were made a part of Christmas to entice pagans to become Christians. Celebration at the time of the creation of the USA were described by thomas Jefferson as "day of greatest mirth and jollity." not neccesarily a religious celebration. Some interesting things here: HISTORY OF CELEBRATING CHRISTMASFrom the above link: When English Puritan Oliver Cromwell came on the scene in 1645, he cancelled Christmas because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible and didn't meet his idea of a holy day. As a result, when the Puritans arrived in Massachusetts, the celebration of Christmas was illegal.
By the war of Independence, celebrations of the 12 days of Christmas were common. However, after the separation from England, European traditions were ignored. Christmas celebrations were no longer fashionable. December 25, 1789 was a working day for the new American Congress. Christmas didn't become a Federal holiday until 1870. Christmas was never actually illegal............ Christmas & Cromwell
|
|
mzpro5
Location: Budda'spet, Hungry Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 9, 2010 - 5:23am |
|
kurtster wrote: At one time, Christmas was the most important Holiday in December to most Americans, more than 51% at least. That was the inherited traditions that were kept for more than a couple of years. Now we have a recently invented Holiday such as Kwanza added to this "Season".
And just what is Chritianity anyway, besides a belief in Christ as their Saviour ? There are so many different versions of Christianity. No one particular version is supported over another, nor has any ever. The idea that one version should be held superior as a State Religion over another version such as existed in England as well as the most of the rest of Europe was the religious reason for coming to America. European Monarch's held their throne based upon divine proclamation and thusly enforced their version as the kingdom's official religion. Spanish Inquisition anybody ? Colonies did have their official versions until the Constitution was ratified. Maryland's for example was Catholic. While there are many other religions in the world and were at the time of the colonization and construction of this country, Christianity was the driving force. The Constitution while not specific, was designed primarily to prevent an official specific version of Christianity from being adopted as the National Religion. The Constitution's openendedness has also made this country safe from any version of any religion from being made the official religion.
This country was founded with a universal belief in God as God is mentioned in our founding documents. These are our roots, there is no denying. No one was required to believe in God to be here after the Constitution was ratified. But this country was founded with a belief in a religious entity. It was how one interpreted the entity that was kept from taking precidence over another's. Nearly all of the original immigrants held Christmas for what it was and the Country celebrated it together. Pretty much that way until after WW II. More like the 60's really when the NYT pronounced that God was dead.
To me, to those that have no tolerance for a display of a cross on public property, than can only be zero tolerance on all public property in order to be consistant with that position.
Disclaimer, FWIW, I belong to no religious organization, nor do I attend church. I do however believe in a higher power and have experienced proof enough to me that what ever it is, it does exist and I acknowledge and accept it. I was raised a Christian and know for sure that Jesus was a real person. After that, I'm open to possibilities. I am offended that when the subject of Christians is brought up in the context of a debate, the most extreme versions are used to describe all who believe and participate. Pat Robertson and the Pope do not speak for all Christians anymore than the Reverand Wright or Jesse Jackson. Christianity does not provide for a political system as does Islam within its written dogma. One can even argue that with the Kosher Laws that Judaism does as well.
The very debate we are currently egaging in has only started in earnest since the NYT pronounced God is dead.
You may be aware of this kurt but Christmas was not really a big holiday until the 19th century and not officially a holiday until 1870. History does not support the bolded statement above and in fact the Puritans thought it was sacrilegious to celebrate Christmas. In England and the rest of Europe celebrating it was largely a day for the lower classes to blow off some steam. The current way we celebrate Christmas is largely a secular invention and most "Christmas traditions" have pagan antecedents.and were made a part of Christmas to entice pagans to become Christians. Celebration at the time of the creation of the USA were described by thomas Jefferson as "day of greatest mirth and jollity." not neccesarily a religious celebration. Some interesting things here: HISTORY OF CELEBRATING CHRISTMASFrom the above link: When English Puritan Oliver Cromwell came on the scene in 1645, he cancelled Christmas because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible and didn't meet his idea of a holy day. As a result, when the Puritans arrived in Massachusetts, the celebration of Christmas was illegal.
By the war of Independence, celebrations of the 12 days of Christmas were common. However, after the separation from England, European traditions were ignored. Christmas celebrations were no longer fashionable. December 25, 1789 was a working day for the new American Congress. Christmas didn't become a Federal holiday until 1870.
|
|
|