Guest Voices

The Case for Moving Christmas

Every year more merchants change their "Merry Christmas" signs to "Happy Holidays," more office Christmas parties become "Seasonal Holiday Parties," and fewer Christmas cards display Christmas scenes. Every year as retail sales increase more references to the holiday's Christian origins are eradicated.

Despite the absurdity of having nations adopt a religious holiday and then purge its religious identity, the commercial extravaganza is already far too important to the global economy to ever be dialed back.

There is a relatively simple solution, however, one that could restore all of the sacred majesty to Christmas without offending non-Christians. One small step could yank the silent, holy night back from the moneychangers without costing vital retail sales. The solution would be to separate the holy day from the holiday.

This could be accomplished by simply moving the date of the religious observance to separate it from the secular commercial holiday. Separating the Manger from Santa's sleigh could restore and protect the religious character of Christmas while still maintaining the vigorous commerce of the holiday season.

With separate "Christian Christmas" and "secular Santa" holidays, folks from Seattle to Schenectady could still spend to their credit limits on beautifully wrapped presents. Businesses could have office parties without awkward gyrations to avoid religious references.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and the non-religious all could share equally in a "generic" winter festival of goodwill and charity. Non-Christians would no longer be made to feel like second-class citizens on an ostensibly religious state holiday.

The name "Christmas" would necessarily remain with the religious holiday, while the secular celebration could keep the December 25th date. The public holiday might be called Mid-winter's Day, YuleFest, Santa's Day, Goodwill Day or any non-religious name.

Before swooning at the thought of moving the putative birthday of the Messiah, it is important to remember that no one actually knows when Jesus of Nazareth was born. Not only is there scant Biblical or historic evidence to tie the birth of Christ to December 25, that date is not even the earliest known time for celebrating the Nativity.

Early leaders of the Roman church chose December 25 for Christ's Mass as a practical way to compete with rival celebrations that were already held on that day. Under the old Roman calendar December 25 was the Winter Solstice.

The most important festival of the year was Natalis Solis Invicti--the Birth of the Invincible Sun God. This December 25 celebration honored Mithras, the Persian god of light. Romans feared the end of the world if the sun could not stage a come-back each year on this day.

In December of 353 A.D, Bishop Liberius of Rome ordered all Christians to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ on December 25. The Roman Christmas day spread quickly across the empire, although some churches resisted the new date.

Before the fourth century, most Eastern Christian churches either celebrated the Presentation of Christ at the time of the Epiphany, (traditionally January 6), or they did not celebrate it at all. Many early scholars derided the notion of giving a birthday to God as ridiculous or even sinful.

Despite painstaking efforts to pinpoint the dates of Biblical events, we still do not even know the year--let alone the day--of Jesus' birth. The Bible gives no date for Christ's birth, but clues in the biblical account could point to either the spring or the fall.

According to the Christmas story in Luke 2:8, "...there were shepherds abiding in the field keeping watch over their flocks by night." It is often argued that Levantine shepherds did not sleep in the fields with their animals except during the spring lambing season--when newborn lambs were most susceptible to predators.

Alternatively, Luke 1:26 describes the angel Gabriel's visit to Mary in Nazareth as being in the sixth month of her cousin Elizabeth's pregnancy. If--as many scholars believe--Elizabeth gave birth to John the Baptist at the time of Passover, it would put Jesus' birth in September. The Roman Catholic Church, however, celebrates the birth of John the Baptist on June 24.

Scholars have raised dozens of other possible dates for Christmas. All are light on evidence and heavy on theory. March 28 is the date of Christ's birth according to De Pascha Computus--a Latin treatise written more than a century before the selection of December 25.

The bottom line is that the actual date of the Bethlehem birth remains a matter of faith and conjecture-laced dogma. Any, and every, date put forward can easily be dismissed.

The fact that Christmas is the leading holiday that is both officially-sanctioned and based on religion opens it up to constant turmoil and complaint. Once an ostensibly religious holiday is granted official status, it gradually--but inevitably--will be shorn of its religious plumage.

If Christmas was treated the same as other important religious holidays, then government officials would have no more right to interfere with it than they would to intrude into Hanukkah or the Hindu Divali festival. The commemoration of the Nativity would be observed by Christians privately and voluntarily.

We no longer worry about Mithraic cults taking control of Italy. Today it is the greed, the material frenzy and the sheer noise of the commercial extravaganza that threaten to suffocate what is left of the silent, holy night.

Some might even argue that today's retail rampage and secular suppression of religious references might pose as great a threat to Christmas as the pagan rites of Rome ever did. If church leaders could justify moving Christmas to a more expedient date back then, they could surely do the same today.

By Robert White-Harvey |  December 12, 2008; 9:28 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: A Hollywood Screenwriter Goes to Mecca | Next: White-Collar Sins

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



If a Christian wants to wish me a Merry Christmas, I've got no problem with that. I must admit though, that I prefer Happy Holidays because it better reflects the diversity of holidays at this time of year. We've got not only Christmas, but also Yule, Diwali, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa, to name a few. Christians who want to make it solely about their holiday should realize that and not get their knickers in a twist when someone says "Happy Holidays" or wishes them greetings according to their non-Christian beliefs.

And Lepidopteryx, I know what you mean! I've tried explaining to people how Samhain is a day for honoring our ancestors, celebrating the last harvest, and saying goodbye to the spirits of those who have crossed over this year, but they still act like I'm going to be siccing curses on them and having animal sacrifices by the light of the moon....

If they want to keep Christmas as their religious holiday, then they can knock themselves out. All I ask is that non-Christians' holidays at least be acknowledged.

Blessed Yule, everyone!

Posted by: dragondancer1814 | December 20, 2008 8:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

rwhiteharvey :
RE: the views expressed by atheists and others that there should not state-sanctioned holidays based on one religion. I agree. You are quite right on both legal and moral grounds.

The point of the article is that non-Christians would be free of the preferential treatment of the majority religion in a national observance. Christians would be free of bureaucrats and others taking the Christ out of Christmas. Merchants would still get to have their all-important orgy of commerce. On separation, merchants would get to keep the December 25th day, while Christians would keep the Christmas name. No one really benefits from the present situation.

I don't think that Christians and non-Christians need to be at odds on this one. If persons of any faith or no faith were free to take a couple of "Spiritual" days off per year, they could use the days for Christmas and Good Friday, or Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, or the beginning and end of Ramadan, or for a Buddhist retreat in the Catskills, or for fishing and camping in Idaho.
****************************************************************************************************
I have suggested this idea to two different administrations in my state, since both Good Friday and Christmas Day are state holidays, for which all state employees receive administrative leave - ie, the time off is not deducted from their personal leave balance. But if I want to take off for one of MY holy days, it is deducted from my personal leave. Seems to me that if government agencies simply allotted every employee x number of days of non-specific administrative leave, then Christians could use it to take off Good Friday, Christmas Day, etc., those of other faiths could use it for their holy days, and those of no faith could use it when they just needed some down time.

I have never gotten a response.

Posted by: lepidopteryx | December 15, 2008 8:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Here's an idea - how about Christians acknowledge that other faiths have holidays and holy days in December and that the fact that they do is not a slap in the face to Christianity. Christmas is INCLUDED in the "holidays" part of "Happy Holidays."

The traditions that so many people, including Christians, associate with Christmas (decorated trees, holly wreaths, mistletoe,exchanging of wrapped gifts, caroling, bells, candles, bonfires, etc.) have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. They all originated with the Pagan celebration of the winter solstice. So Christians needn't complain about "Christmas trees" being marketed as "holiday trees." Trees were being decorated in December long before the birth of Ieshua.

This Pagan doesn't get upset when certain Christians with whom I am acquainted tell me "Merry Christmas." Funny, though, how, if at the end of October, I wish these same Christians a "Blessed Samhain," they come unhinged.

Posted by: lepidopteryx | December 15, 2008 8:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

RE: the views expressed by atheists and others that there should not state-sanctioned holidays based on one religion. I agree. You are quite right on both legal and moral grounds.

The point of the article is that non-Christians would be free of the preferential treatment of the majority religion in a national observance. Christians would be free of bureaucrats and others taking the Christ out of Christmas. Merchants would still get to have their all-important orgy of commerce. On separation, merchants would get to keep the December 25th day, while Christians would keep the Christmas name. No one really benefits from the present situation.

I don't think that Christians and non-Christians need to be at odds on this one. If persons of any faith or no faith were free to take a couple of "Spiritual" days off per year, they could use the days for Christmas and Good Friday, or Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, or the beginning and end of Ramadan, or for a Buddhist retreat in the Catskills, or for fishing and camping in Idaho.

America was the last major Christian nation to even recognize Christmas. Some states only made it a holiday in the 20th Century. Yet today people act as if traditions started by Dickens, Irving and Walt Disney are inextricably tied to the Gospel of Luke.

Posted by: rwhiteharvey | December 15, 2008 8:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

DMZ1:

After crying 76% Christians are imposing their holiday on others, 15% atheists would like to impose THEIR idea of how many holidays the nation should have on the 76% population?

Wow!

Posted by: politicallyincorrectworldcitizen1 | December 15, 2008 7:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Christian: (78.5%)
Protestant (51.3%)
Roman Catholic (23.9%)
Mormon (1.7%)
other Christian (1.6%)
unaffiliated (12.1%)
none (4%)
other or unspecified (2.5%)
Jewish (1.7%)
Buddhist (0.7%)
Muslim (0.6%)

Actually, the unaffiliated population is larger than the atheist population.

Posted by: CCNL | December 15, 2008 4:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

politicallycorrect....:

The U.S. is about 75% Christian. That means there are 75 million non-Christians of which atheists are the largest group. I am an atheist.

That said, I don't care when you have your holy day. It just shouldn't be a national holiday. No national holidays should have anything to do with any religion. The government of the U.S. has no business taking any position whatever on the existence of god or any other religious thing. Christmas is the only religious holiday. It should be eliminated as a national holiday.

Posted by: DMZ1 | December 15, 2008 12:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Frankly, I think more Christian isolationism (And let's face it, a move like that isn't going to happen) is entirely from the purpose of having a public holiday season at all. Christians are perfectly free to be as religious as they like about the winter holiday season, or not, as they like.

Non-Christians didn't make of the holiday this binge of consumerism: it's silly to pretend anyone did that but you.

The winter holidays are an ideal time to be *sharing* traditions, not pretending it should be some kind of territory-marking in a 'culture war' or that anyone's taking anything away from you by not pretending to be Christian.

Posted by: Paganplace | December 14, 2008 9:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

lincolnnebr :

Watch the well-researched Birth of Jesus documentary by National Geographic and get back to us.

Posted by: CCNL | December 13, 2008 11:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Creative and intriguing. Recent computer models have shown the conjunction of Venus and Jupiter ( the Christmas Star) as having occurred June 17th 2BC. Moving it again and possibly expanding the joy shouldn't be such an issue.
It's always been a good idea to stretch the 'Happiest Time of the Year' over the twelve days. This is not only inclusive but allows us to take advantage of the post-Christmas sales.
Maybe we can just move Hannakah too(and grant them an extra day to boot...) and blend them together. America is after all the greatest dysfunctional blended family of all.
Love and Joy!

Posted by: bptree123 | December 13, 2008 2:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

In response to CCNL, so the author is supposed to agree with one magazine / tv program's opinion before writing another column? That there were no shepherds or wise men? Most Christians would disagree with that opinion. And the four gospels do not all cover the exact same events. In fact, the Gospel of John is unique from the other three in most of its coverage. But they all blend together very well.

Posted by: lincolnnebr | December 13, 2008 2:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Christmas" is the birthday of the Unconquered Sun, the great soul from whom all life descends. If the Christians want to borrow a bit of Sol's shine for their newborn king, that's OK; they too are born of the sun's tears.

A happy Yule to all.

Posted by: onofrio | December 13, 2008 6:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Just how many Jews, Hindus, Muslims and pagans are there in the US?

What stops non-Christians from joining in the celebrations and fun (minus the religious aspect)?

Posted by: politicallyincorrectworldcitizen1 | December 13, 2008 6:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

apple92681:

Why not just do what the Latin countries do and celebrate Christ's birth on January 6th as a religious holiday?

Let Dec. 25th be "Winter Night" as it is still reffered to in Germany and Scandinavia.

December 12, 2008 5:07 PM

***

Eastern Orthodox celebrate Christmas on 6th January. Russian Orthodox celebrate on 7th January. The Roman Catholic Church which is Latin, celebrates Christmas on 25th December. With 1.3 billion Catholics around the world that makes for quite a number. All Protestant denominations celebrate Christmas on 25th December as well. The British Empire made it an (almost) worldwide holiday.

Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the three German speaking countries of Europe, celebrate 24th evening as "Holy Evening" (Heilige Abend) when they go to Mass/Church service and exchange presents, sing carols, eat Christmas cake and cookies, and have a rather simple meal together. The first Christmas Day is the 25th December, and the Christmas lunch is the grand meal, and the second Christmas Day is the 26th. (It is not known as Boxing Day.)

So you see they celebrate for two and a half days, each day is equally important.

Posted by: politicallyincorrectworldcitizen1 | December 13, 2008 5:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Does political correctness go that far to accommodate, what 20% non-Christians in the US?

So faaaaaaaaaaar, that Christians must find another day to celebrate a religious holiday that has been celebrated for centuries worldwide now, and in all Christian countries is a season of festivities?

Wow!

Posted by: politicallyincorrectworldcitizen1 | December 13, 2008 5:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yeah, like that would go over...

Did you folks realize that, in Puritan England and Massachusetts Bay Colony, Christmas was banned because it was "too Pagan"? That Christmas celebrations were a major source of tension between Cromwell's Roundheads and the Cavaliers who sought to restore the Monarchy?

Also, the modern "war on Christmas" kerfuffle stems from anti-Semitic "white power" types who are afraid that immigrants and Jews are going to strip America's "Christian identity" away? Seriously. So, when people start screaming that saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is an affront to Christians, maybe they're just being bigoted against Jews and other non-Christians who celebrate this time of year.

Merry Whatever.

Posted by: Athena4 | December 12, 2008 11:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The author should review National Geographic's The Birth of Jesus before writing another column. The NT and historical Jesus exegetes interviewed on the show concluded that there were no shepherds, no wisemen, and no Star over Bethlehem because Jesus was born in Nazareth. The best estimate as to date was sometime in June. Mark and John don't even mention the natavity in their gospels.

The Birth of Jesus can be seen 24/7 if you have cable TV and On-Demand service.

Posted by: CCNL | December 12, 2008 11:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I mean, maybe there's a lot of Christians out there who forgot something about the Solstice holiday.... This isn't a day someone's *taking* from you, that's 'supposed' to be about fear and damnation and hairshirts and religious 'purity' and 'purging sinners' and all that usual stuff you're all about.

This holiday ...Holly-day...

*is itself a gift.* From our ancestors. To today.

People forget,

But nothing's forgotten.

Don't do this.

it ain't worth it.

Just ain't.

Posted by: Paganplace | December 12, 2008 6:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"And if you look into your mirror you'll see that nobody
Has ever ripped you off, it's all in your mind."

--Love and Rockets.

Posted by: Paganplace | December 12, 2008 6:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I mean, hey... You know all that stuff, which is most of it, that we do around Yule that doesn't seem to mean much of anything and no one knows how it's supposed to connect to Jesus in the first place?

It makes sense to someone.

Best not to push it if you really don't want to know who 'stole' what.

Posted by: Paganplace | December 12, 2008 6:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Despite the absurdity of having nations adopt a religious holiday and then purge its religious identity,"

Where in the Holy Holly Hel do you think the Christianized Roman Empire got Christmas in the *first* place?

Gods.

Peace on Earth or something.

Posted by: Paganplace | December 12, 2008 5:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Why not just do what the Latin countries do and celebrate Christ's birth on January 6th as a religious holiday?

Let Dec. 25th be "Winter Night" as it is still reffered to in Germany and Scandinavia.

Posted by: apple92681 | December 12, 2008 5:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

LOVE it! Blessed Yule!

Posted by: pallasathena1 | December 12, 2008 2:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2009 The Washington Post Company