Posted
by David Ryan
December 5, 2005 at 9:47 a.m.
A Puritan Christmas
Suggesting ([yet again][1]) that history has a powerful sense of irony, and cares not a whit what any of us here in the present believe, here's an [informative piece][2] that adds some interesting perspective to the contemporary [perception][3] of a secular "War on Christmas":
The Puritans considered Christmas un-Christian, and hoped to keep it out of America. They could not find Dec. 25 in the Bible, their sole source of religious guidance, and insisted that the date derived from Saturnalia, the Roman heathens' wintertime celebration. On their first Dec. 25 in the New World, in 1620, the Puritans worked on building projects and ostentatiously ignored the holiday. From 1659 to 1681 Massachusetts went further, making celebrating Christmas "by forbearing of labor, feasting or in any other way" a crime.The concern that Christmas distracted from religious piety continued even after Puritanism waned. In 1827, an Episcopal bishop lamented that the Devil had stolen Christmas "and converted it into a day of worldly festivity, shooting and swearing." Throughout the 1800's, many religious leaders were still trying to hold the line. As late as 1855, New York newspapers reported that Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist churches were closed on Dec. 25 because "they do not accept the day as a Holy One." On the eve of the Civil War, Christmas was recognized in just 18 states.Christmas gained popularity when it was transformed into a domestic celebration, after the publication of Clement Clarke Moore's "Visit from St. Nicholas" and Thomas Nast's Harper's Weekly drawings, which created the image of a white-bearded Santa who gave gifts to children. The new emphasis lessened religious leaders' worries that the holiday would be given over to drinking and swearing, but it introduced another concern: commercialism. By the 1920's, the retail industry had adopted Christmas as its own, sponsoring annual ceremonies to kick off the "Christmas shopping season."__Religious leaders objected strongly. The Christmas that emerged had an inherent tension: merchants tried to make it about buying, while clergymen tried to keep commerce out. A 1931 Times roundup of Christmas sermons reported a common theme: "the suggestion that Christmas could not survive if Christ were thrust into the background by materialism." A 1953 Methodist sermon broadcast on NBC - typical of countless such sermons - lamented that Christmas had become a "profit-seeking period." This ethic found popular expression in "A Charlie Brown Christmas." In the 1965 TV special, Charlie Brown ignores Lucy's advice to "get the biggest aluminum tree you can find" and her assertion that Christmas is "a big commercial racket," and finds a more spiritual way to observe the day._History never fails to humble and surprise. Who could've imagined, given the charges being thrown around lately on news programs ("The wagers of this war on Christmas are a cabal of secularists, so-called humanists, trial lawyers, cultural relativists, and liberal, guilt-wracked Christians"-John Gibson, FOXNews. That's his book cover up above.), that it was Puritan Christians who actually _did make Christmas illegal?More on the history of Christmas from the [History Channel][4].This has been a free, public service, History Nugget/¢ announcement. [1]: http://www.trentu.ca/jjoyce/fw-3.htm [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/opinion/04sun3.html?hp [3]: http://mediamatters.org/items/200511300007 [4]: http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/holidays/christmas/
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
tomking (Tom King) says…
Didn't Charles Dickens also influence the popularity Christmas holiday?Seems like a smart person mentioned something about that.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
I've always maintained that it would be nice if Americans knew more about their own history.
Protestants in particular and anyone who is critical of Paganism should be at least a little concerned about celebrating Christmas (and Easter for that matter). But it's not terribly surprising in our culture that people have lost sight of the tenets of their own religion because of the importance of consumerism.
Thanks for addressing this in your blog. It's important information for theists and atheists alike.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
I do not intend to hijack this blog with this information, but I thought people might be interested in knowing about this:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec...
Assault in the name of Jesus? Spreading a little Christmas cheer? Why am I not surprised?
I guess this information has some relevance to this blog. Assuming that this assault on Mirecki was a reaction to his much-publicized comments, I wonder if maybe more people were made aware of the history of their religions, their religions' teachings and how these teachings have changed over time, they wouldn't be as violent as they occasionally are in the name of their religions.
Education, education, education...why do people fear it so much?
greyhawk (anonymous) says…
David....good blog!
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Interesting factoid, among many, on the History Channel site:
"Congress was in session on December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under America's new constitution. Christmas wasn't declared a federal holiday until June 26, 1870."
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
As for the O'Reilly take (for they who might not take the link above):
'On the November 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Bill O'Reilly pointed to "a very secret plan" by the "secular progressive" movement, which he said aims to "diminish Christian philosophy in the U.S.A." ... O'Reilly's disclosure of this "secret plan" was followed the day after by a rant on his radio show against the "hateful liars" who "spit out" "blatant propaganda" that is "picked up by the mainstream media, and rammed down the public's throat."'
'"In every secular progressive country, they've wiped out religion ... Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, all of them. That's the first step. Get the religion out of there, so that we can impose our big-government, progressive agenda."'
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
It is quite true that the 17th Century Americans did not celebrate Christmas. But, as with most things, there is a lot more to the story (of how, when, why, and where Christmas is/was celebrated):
http://www.historychannel.com/exhibit...
An Outlaw Christmas
In the early 17th century, a wave of religious reform changed the way Christmas was celebrated in Europe. When Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan forces took over England in 1645, they vowed to rid England of decadence and, as part of their effort, cancelled Christmas. By popular demand, Charles II was restored to the throne and, with him, came the return of the popular holiday.
The pilgrims, English separatists that came to America in 1620, were even more orthodox in their Puritan beliefs than Cromwell. As a result, Christmas was not a holiday in early America. From 1659 to 1681, the celebration of Christmas was actually outlawed in Boston. Anyone exhibiting the Christmas spirit was fined five shillings. By contrast, in the Jamestown settlement, Captain John Smith reported that Christmas was enjoyed by all and passed without incident.
After the American Revolution, English customs fell out of favor, including Christmas. In fact, Congress was in session on December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under America's new constitution. Christmas wasn't declared a federal holiday until June 26, 1870.
For an interesting pictorial of the Five Ages of Christmas see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_...
Personally, I think some sadists came up with the Holiday. I think the conversation between them went something like this:
"I know what we can do. Let's create a holiday in the coldest part of the year, when everyone has just about run out of money, and institute forced spending, reinforced by large doses of guilt for those who won't cooperate. Oh, and for added fun, let's insist that they hold lots of parties, with people they normally aren't around or that they don't like, and make them have at least 2-3 of those for the month. And if possible, maybe we can see to it that most people who don't celebrate the holiday are made to feel abnormal or even evil!!"
Yep, a sadists dream...
Bah Humbug.....
Dazie (Aileen Dingus) says…
Ladylaw- you forgot to put the part about "Let's have concerts and ballets and performances nonstop, so that people have to do their forced spending in the middle of the night and forego normal sleep patterns, so that during the days with the least amount of sunshine, they're already sleep deprived and depressed."
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
LOL at ladylaw and Dazie!
Resist the sadists! Cancel Christmas for yourself! Be abnormal and evil - at least you'll be relaxed, you won't become a crazy consumer whose biggest Christmas gift is debt, you won't gain 10 pounds from Holiday Party buffets and you can avoid annoying relatives. Joy to the world!
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Whiners:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Cancel Christmas? As tempting as that sounds sometimes, with the large and extended and dysfunctionally close family I possess, they'd have me committed (or worse) if I tried to totally ignore the event. So I warn them they won't get gifts till after the year end sales start, if at all. I refuse to buckle under to the required festive spirit when what I want to do most is eat a bunch of fatty food and then hibernate for 3 months (I must be descended from bears not apes). I almost punched my car pool partner this morning when I got into her van and she had cheery Christmas music playing. I do try to keep in my mind the underlying message(s) and not let the outside crazies infiltrate too far into my inner sanctum of peaceful thoughts. But it's hard. I am afraid I'm going to soon have to tell my beloved mother-in-law that there really is too much as too many Christmas decorations.... And Dazie, you are 100% correct on the extra events. Add that to my list of sadistic things thrown on the backs of those who "Celebrate" Christmas. However, at least I have at this point gotten past having to attend those (my only child is 27 and his daughter isn't - as yet - in any cute kiddie things I must attend).
My favorite holiday is Easter. It involves a wonderful message, of life and hope. It takes place in lovely Spring weather, and the hardest thing I have to do is fix some good food. The most hectic part of it is coloring eggs. Christmas is really for people who love nostalgia (and winter) more then I do!
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
Fortunately for those exhausted by secular (or even devout) Christmas celebrations, our Christmas season coincides with one of the holy days of Sufism:
http://www.dankphotos.com/whirling/in...
When yr overwhelmed by the holidays and someone wishes you "Happy Christmas" or "Merry Kwanzaa!" or whatever, just respond, "Happy Feast of the Seven Whirling Dervishes!" It's best if you actually whirl while doing so.
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Could it be that America needs a new descriptor, "Religiously Correct," companion to yesterday's "Politically Correct," to keep up with the times?
In Bill's example above, the Bushes would be seen as not "religiously correct" enough for some people.
Perhaps we need the phrase "RC police" as well, companion to the existing phrase "PC police," to describe those in the Wash. Post story who are upset with the Bushes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politica...
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
I always enjoy the Feast of St. Dagobert on the 23rd. Interesting times, those dark ages...
On the RC Police, I'm just shaking my head. Some people really, really don't have enough to do in real life...
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
And the saga continues:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec...
Seems to me that the Dean may have suggested that the position of department Chair just might not suit him. This is a clear message to all KU faculty. Watch out what you say. Big Brother is watching you closely. I wonder if the Chancellor may have even said something like : "Maybe KU isn't right for you." Sad state of affairs.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"Seems to me that the Dean may have suggested that the position of department Chair just might not suit him. This is a clear message to all KU faculty."
How can you draw a "clear message" without any evidence that his resignation came about from the Chancellor? Upon just as much evidence (namely none) one could make just as good a case saying that Mirecki recognized that his Tawana Brawley moment was about over and he left before he irreparably damaged the college's reputation.
When one draws conclusions on no evidence, they are more likely to reflect the hopes and fears of the logician than they are the facts of the case.
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
"When one draws conclusions on no evidence, they are more likely to reflect the hopes and fears of the logician than they are the facts of the case."
Thus describing this as Mirecki's "Tawana Brawley moment."
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"Thus describing this as Mirecki's 'Tawana Brawley moment.'"
If one were to assert that he faked the whole incident based on what we don't know, then one would be making the same mistake Morgana is making. There is at least one and at most three people who know exactly what happened here. Until the rest of us know, we would be wise to avoid drawing clear messages, especially those that simply reinforce our own prejudices.
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Apparently Jeb Bush isn't religiously correct either:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/...
From the story: ''I certainly am disappointed that the president and the governor can't acknowledge the national holiday that we're celebrating.''
I wonder if the person quoted knows that on the first Christmas under the Constitution a) Christmas was not a "national holiday" and b) Congress was in session?
Ah, Clio, muse of history, wherefore art thou so absent?
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
It is not a "mistake" to believe a victim crime report. It is a mistake to wear ideological blinders so heavy that the assumption is made that the victim is lying on the basis of what the unwashed masses believe to be the victim's political or religious beliefs.
You don't doubt Mirecki on the basis of any "facts." You doubt him because he thinks differently than you. Everyone in and out of Kansas knows that if the situation were reversed--if the complaining witness were a self-described christian and the alleged assailants were godless communistic atheistic terrorist-loving antiAmerican academics--precisely the same people now howling "Tawana Brawley" would be calling for a federal intervention and a state of emergency--or more likely, driving the streets and shooting longhairs.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
There is such a thing as "getting the message" through certain actions that are made in response to certain events. I know how things work. As a junior faculty member who is pre-tenure, you can bet your bible that I got the message loud and clear in how the administration reacted. In fact, I wonder if I have tread on thin ice by posting here, however anonymously. Especially since I will be addressing many of the same issues in a class I will be teaching next semester that Mirecki planned to address in his class, albeit in a different academic context.
Is no one surprised that there hasn't been vocal reaction to Mirecki's troubles from faculty and junior faculty in particular? My father is a theist and quite conservative in his political views and he was hoping that there would be an academic debate among KU faculty on the issue that gave rise to this controversy. I had to laugh and suddenly an image of an administrator "black-listing" the debate participants flashed before my eyes. I've heard enough horror stories about how faculty are silenced and mobbed to understand the risks. And yet I will post this, but that's going to be it.
It's all about fear, my friends. Real fear. Academic freedom? Free speech on campus? Free academic exchange at the university level? Not if you want to keep your job. They have their ways of "encouraging" people to find places of employment that "may be more suitable." Trust me - we are made aware of this by advisors before we take jobs. Books have been published on this. It's a different system in academia and for that reason, you have to learn a different language.
citizenx (anonymous) says…
Every job has its own moral code. Doctors can't accept payola from pharmeceutical corporations. Journalists can't be connected with a political party. Elementary school teachers can't be strippers. Academics can't..., oh, we get the idea. But Mirecki has been in this position for years, you know, he has been very controversial. The difference is he wasn't on the fundie radar before this. Oh yeah, and he is a Harvard theologian. He isn't like us. His job at the university is really different from anyone else's and can't be compared with those of junior faculty. For one thing...his job is secure because he is considered a great academician and his research is a credit to the university--the Chancellor would not want to lose someone like him and would not let it happen unless it were really what Mirecki wanted. Stepping down as chair is for his own safety, and is unfortunate. But his job is hardly in danger, that is what I think.
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
morganalefay --
Thanks for your insights, and I hope you do keep posting comments.
I myself am a refugee from academia - more an expatriate, actually. Happily.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"the assumption is made that the victim is lying...You doubt him because he thinks differently than you"
Sorry, PQ, but you're behind on your reading again. As I said on my own blog, "...I'll wait and see. And I won't be surprised either way: some Bible bangers DO carry out physical violence against those who threaten to humiliate them. And some people do fake attacks for sympathy and to score political points."
Of course, no college professor would ever fake a hate crime, right?
http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/042604a.htm
Yeah, color me a skeptic.
I agree with CitizenX on this one. This whole tempest is hardly enough to drive a tenured chairman from his job unless he wanted to leave it. Something else is at work, and I'll save my opinions until I figure out what it is, thanks.
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says…
Comparing Dr. Mirecki to Tawana Brawley, or popping off about how this "doesn't pass the smell test," is precisely the opposite of "saving" yr opinions. This is an issue over which two sides are unalterably opposed. I freely admit to being on one side. Don't waffle about being on the other.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
I completely waffle about being on the other and will continue to until such questions are answered as I have trouble with. Sorry, PQ. If it turns out the police indict two redneck bible bangers, I'll be on your side. If it turns out that such men never existed, I'll be on the other. I wonder if I'll be joined by you in that case.
Even Mirecki understands that an agnostic, though skeptical of one side, is not asserting the other. Well, I'm an agnostic.
I'm glad you're so trusting that simple questions like "Where did the assault occur?" do not keep you from naming the guilty parties. Faith is a wonderful thing, no?
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
Bill wrote: "This whole tempest is hardly enough to drive a tenured chairman from his job unless he wanted to leave it."
Well, a senior colleague of mine who has lots of experience with KU's administration remarked that Mirecki's resignation letter was written on letterhead from the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and NOT on letterhead from the Department of Religious Studies. That gave my colleague cause to believe taht the Dean may very well have written the letter and "asked" Mirecki to sign it.
David wrote: "Thanks for your insights, and I hope you do keep posting comments."
Thanks for the kind words. I'll continue to post, but I really should stop posting on this topic. I wouldn't my criticisms of and comments on what has been going on to sound like I condoned the controversial remarks Mirecki made that were made public.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"That gave my colleague cause to believe taht the Dean may very well have written the letter and 'asked' Mirecki to sign it."
If that were the case, I would stand corrected and gladly.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
I guess my colleague was right:
An interesting quote from today's LJW:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec...
"Mirecki said the university had done little to back him and that he was fired as department chairman because he had the 'temerity to challenge the power of the religious right in Kansas and the university capitulated to demands of the conservative minority.'
He said he felt let down by the administration and colleagues who sought his resignation Tuesday.
He said he had no choice but to sign the resignation letter, which was typed on stationery from the office of Barbara Romzek, interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences."
This is what I was afraid of.