All Comments (85)

Rev. Elliott:

"I’ve never said that minorities should be “denied their rights to speak up”: that would be government (police) action."

No, you've only defended your own practice of teaching that *mobs* who attack people in public for *not* saying 'Merry Christmas' are less at fault than the person who had the temerity to *be* of a minority.

You've turned even 'Merry Christmas' into a potential prelude to an attack by Christians.

When you defend the violent actions of those you propose to shepherd because the *victim* was 'disturbing the social tranquility (“peace”)' *by offering his own holidays' greeting,*

No, you have no "peace" to offer, and certainly no America. Only fear and tyranny. Even if you deny the effects of your actions while saying it's impossible for those who say 'That is *wrong!* ...to have any 'Morality,' cause you define your version of your religion as the only possible source of morality, thus anything you do must be justified, and anyone else must really be at fault for *your* depredations, just for being there.

Gods know I've heard *that* rationalization before.

To whoever, (Reverend Elliott?) who said this under the 'Anonymous' name, got a simple answer for this:

"The easy one: "with the coining of 'Our Creator' (additionally, I was wondering- does the 'Our' pertain to you and yours, pagans in general, or all of us?"."

Pagans tend to see the American (Deist) mention of the Divine: as in 'Endowed by their creator' as a statement on human rights being a Divine mandte regardless of what religion or clergy might make these rights conditional (as a function of their religious specificities, for instance,) ...saying that these rights are *inherent and unalienable,* not 'only alienable by those who claim to speak for a specific Creator.'

Some Dominionists and exclusivists like the Reverend here want to ..exclusively identify the 'Creator' thus referenced with their interpretation of their translation of the book about their version of their God.

We see this as far less specific, cause it would have been easy as pie for people that literate to make extensive reference to the theocracy these folks want.

It means that as Americans we agree to believe that the highest authority that exists, whatever that may be seen to be, *endowed us by virtue of being living humans with *unalienable* rights.

Among these rights being life, *liberty,* and the pursuit of happiness.

Not 'life unless we want to execute you, liberty, unless you threaten our violent sensibilities of 'unity,' or the 'pursuit of happiness' as someone defines 'happiness' while trying to legislate enforced misery.

The unalienability is the key word, not the squabbling over who gets to alienate people in the name of a Creator.

In short, most Pagans get along fine with the text of the Constitution. Not so with how others want to use that one word as appropriated by their *own* religious-political movement to *claim* the power to *make* these rights 'alienable' from nonbelievers.

Like I said, the Reverend here isn't about 'The American Mind,' ...he's about wanting something else. Something the American mind should know better than to fall for.

Gee, Reverend: Who 'hates America for our freedom, *now?*

For you say *this:*

"You say my “unity is death to those who want freedom.” It’s a wash: I say your “freedom” is death to us who want the U.S. to survive in unity."

This is *not* the American mind, sir.

That's something else.

Wanterby,

Located in the northeastern region of North America, originally the Six Nations was five and included the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. The sixth nation, the Tuscaroras, migrated into Iroquois country in the early eighteenth century. Together these peoples comprise the oldest living participatory democracy on earth. Their story, and governance truly based on the consent of the governed, contains a great deal of life-promoting intelligence for those of us not familiar with this area of American history. The original United States representative democracy, fashioned by such central authors as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, drew much inspiration from this confederacy of nations. In our present day, we can benefit immensely, in our quest to establish anew a government truly dedicated to all life's liberty and happiness much as has been practiced by the Six Nations for over 800 hundred years.

Long before women in this country even started the fight for equality the Five Nations gave rights to their women:

We, the women of the Iroquois
Own the Land, the Lodge, the Children
Ours is the right to adoption, life or death;
Ours is the right to raise up and depose chiefs;
Ours is the right to representation in all councils;
Ours is the right to make and abrogate treaties;
Ours is the supervision over domestic and foreign policies;
Ours is the trusteeship of tribal property;
Our lives are valued again as high as man's.

The Great Binding Law /The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm

There were meetings between the Five Nations and our Founders before the Constitution was written....So between the Greeks, Romans and the Five Nations...our Founders based our political construction on long lasting, proven methods. And not of Christianity, which was seen in the history of Europe not to work very well.

terra

Kind of funny you 'act civilly' by promoting bigotry and division. Telling folks in the minority not to upset the apple cart because they happen to have a valid point of view. And that you so blithely shove aside because 'they're in the minority' so that 'their points shouldn't really matter'.

I call BS.

America is not a Christian nation.

Never was.. or will be.

Everything you have written in regards to those who don't think like you is dogmatic. Pretty words aside or not. It's not an invitation to conversation, it's an assertion of a superiority by 'majority rule' that is in itself a false dichotomy. Spread by people in the majority who cry 'war on Christmas' when others are willing to stand up and say 'I don't celebrate anything to do with Jesus'.

Religion is and should always be a private affair.
But you insist on making this country into some sort of Christian image. Which it never was. And those who oppose you you dismiss as 'party poopers' or 'haters' or some other brand of biased language. Because you fear what you don't understand. Always have, always will.

That is not promoting discussion, though it may assuage your giant ego to think so.

I am so fortunate to have Christian friends who also strongly disagree with you- it tells me that not everyone who calls themselves Christian is bent on forcing their religion onto other people- and shows that Christianity could actually be about what he taught. Exactly what part of 'love your neighbor as yourself' are you following?

Blessed Yule.

To JIHADIST:

You said, "Only one match? Do you both need gasoline too? Might as well go all the way and burn the Bible, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishsads, the Dhammapada, Age of Reason, Mad Magazine....."

Now we're getting somewhere! May we please substitute, "Book of Mormon" for Mad Magazine?

(((((Merry Xmas))))

"Doctor"

I was calling you out to see if my analysis of your sinister purpose was correct. Your response has proven that it was.

Therefore, let it be known to all who were in doubt that this doctor favors the supremacy of Christianity above all else. Anyone with a differing belief or opinion best beware...

Roger Scott,

Exactly. Well put.

There should be no fear in any human being to state the actual truth. Kudos to you for doing so.

There are ways that scripture instructs us to worship our Lord and Savior.

Christmas is not one of them. If Jesus chased the money changers from the temple, why in the world would humanity think He would be pleased with the commercialism in His name at this time of year. Man creates Jesus in his own image. Doesnt mean it is true and correct. According to Hebrews, Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. It is mankind who changes.

Rev. 12:9

Jesus may not be the reason for the season.

Luke 2:8: And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

This places the birth of Jesus somewhere around mid year. Sheep were kept under cover during the hard winters.
Why celebrate on December 25 then? Two hypotheses
(i) The Roman feast of Saturnalia was adopted and adapted by early Christians
(ii) the winter solstice festival of the invincible sun, Sol Invictus was co-opted.

Either way Jesus is not the reason for the season. He is just the reason employed for the last 1500 years or so.

Dear Dr Elliot

I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2008! I hope you get to celebrate Christmas also with some non-Christian friends and those who have no friends and family too (since suicide rate is the highest during the Christmas season among those who cannot cope with the loneliness if they happen to have no family to share Christmas with).

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Things were never that wonderful. But as we get older, we dislike the future that's been built from the decisions we made when we were younger, and we keep trying to "reset the clock."

Elliott's trying to reset the clock -- back before the proverbial chickens came home to roost.

Don't mistake the symbols of Freemasonry used by the country's founders (mostly Freemasons) -- the pyramid with the eye, that sort of thing -- for Christian symbols.

Freemasonry is a hoot, but it's only nominally Christian.

For me, the crowning glory of this nostalgia romp is the Whopper of Big Lies about the "American mind," the alleged province of Christian white folks. That had me chuckling.

If you read anything by people that signed the country's founding documents, you realize that our participatory democracy was based on the example of the government of the Five (now six) Nations. They didn't try to hide their admiration.

These were "deists" (look that one up!) and staunch believers in the Enlightenment. (If the founding fathers appeared today, there would be a lot of Christians ready to brand them as liberals and worse the minute they opened their mouths.)

It's a glorious bit of revisionism, this new "American Mind" -- which was actually developed by the First Peoples, those wily red heathens whose country we stole -- and who we tried to exterminate because they got mad and fought us. We've tried to take credit for much of their original work, and here we are doing it again.

Willis,

A better statement would be, "There is no historical reason for the Christian Christmas season."

Merry Reality to everyone!!!!

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

CONCERNED...

I taught the New Testament in its original language & have long been entertained & bored by speculations as to the historicity of this or that detail. By combining the hermeneutics of suspicion with the genetic fallacy, a clever exegete may claim that this or that detail is “nothing but” a fictional projection from some or other preChristian myth or historical mite. Wise participants in any human tradition can & do both exercise and suspend disbelief.

There are multitudinous reasons for the season, but you are wrong in saying there is “No Historic Reason.” The first HISTORICAL fact is Jesus’ birth (sometime/somewhere, within severe time-&-place limits; but denying it is a backwater opinion). The second HISTORICAL fact is that in our American culture, this time of year is Christian.

Christmas, in order words, is highly HISTORICAL-FACTUAL. And its tapestry of scenes/sights/sounds continues to delight & enthrall (even in Radio City Music Hall Christmas, where the audience-cameras flash only when the crèche scene is unveiled).

DANIEL

The two things that most impress me about your post are (1) that you have the “theologian” aspect just right & (2) that you didn’t quit reading me after I was “harsh” to you. As to the latter, I’m torn between the urge of ask your forgiveness & the thought that my rough treatment of you may have been what you needed--& I’m humbled by the thought that if you had been harsh to me, I might have stopped reading you.

You speak of the “conflations” & “convergences” of Christmas, then spell out its commercial corruption. A “mess,” indeed, & a battleground. We can all have some sympathy for the Plymouth Bay Colony’s imprisonment of anybody caught celebrating Christmas! But I’m inclined to the generosity Jesus expressed: “Let the wheat and the weeds grow together until the harvest.”

JOET

says “I dont care what the American Mind was....Dr. E, your history is much better than your reasoning from it to current social philosophy.”

1 Pres. Eisenhower, after a conversation with Khrushchev, said “Everybody needs a religion, and I don’t care what it is.” Later, he regretted the wording “don’t care.” In saying my “history” (i.e., reading of the religion factor in America’s origin-story) is good, you show you do care.

2 I care that America’s children hear America’s origin-story without secularist spinning. At the heart of that story is “the American mind” as I have been describing on the authority of the leading historians of American religion & philosophy. On this, I take it, you are not disagreeing with me.

3 You are correct that my notions of how to save America from amnesia about “the American mind” are inferior to my “reasoning from it.” But my central concern is not my proposals for NOW but that, in the interest of getting the FUTURE better, we get an accurate understanding of the PAST.

4 I like the way you put it to Daniel. You agree with my picture of the (America-constituting) American mind which we all should “cherish, celebrate, and certainly remember...accurately whenever revisionists raise their ugly head.” Those of us with this POV should get our heads together as to how we Americans can best do this remembering. Living Americans can’t remember what they never knew, so how we get back to square one (a tough project, in view of the virtual elimination of theist claims from the public schoolroom since the 1963 Supreme Court banning of God-recognition: if God is not central to sense-making, God [& Jesus & Christmas] don’t make sense)?

5 Christmas as battlefield is only marginal to the problem of “remembering.” Indeed, the present American highly commercialized Christmas is to me more repulsive than attractive, the mall having replaced the church. (On Dec.5 in Omaha, a 19-year-old shot up a mall [8 dead + his suicide] after leaving a note saying the whole thing—life itself—is “meaningless.”) (From the leading dictionary-publisher, I have an old letter thanking me for adding “consumerism”-as-a-religion to their dictionary. The just-published book CONSUMED spells out in detail how the market became America’s deity, the mall its temple.)

6 You may be correct that America can no longer expect Christmas to be civil, peaceful. Even though the country is (as HR 847 passed 12.16.07 says) “over 3/4ths Christian” & the federal government accepts Christmas as Christian, we Christians & the government cannot expect nonChristians (in your words) to “lay low for a month or so.” But what to do? Solstice is four days before the 12 days of Christmas....perhaps some day the late-Dec., early Jan. days will be portioned out among the religions in our pluralist society. Do you have any suggestions (1) for keeping alive “the American mind” & (2) for “Christmas”?

7 Yesterday I was at a family gathering of more than 54 & read to some (as a feeble but real buffer against the consumerist Christmas) a 1513 greeting of a poor man (a monk, Brother John [Fra Giovanni]) who had nothing material to give. Here it is: “I SALUTE YOU! There is nothing I can give you which you have not; but there is much that, while I cannot give, you can take. / No heaven can come to us unless our hearts find rest in it today. Take Heaven. / No peace lies in the future which is not hidden in this present instant. Take Peace. / The gloom of the world is but a shadow; behind it, yet within our reach, is joy. Take joy. / And so, at this Christmas time, I greet you, with the prayer that for you, now and forever, the day breaks and the shadows flee away.”

DANIEL

No, “Happy Holidays” is not “how we all talk.” I’ve never said it. But you are correct that it’s common.

PRIVER

I did not & would not deny any American “the basic right to speak up and to promote change.” I’ve been in a lot of pro-change demos as (yes) a progressive. And in my current column’s first paragraph, I affirmed that subway Jew’s “equal right” to speak up. The issue is wisdom/prudence/civility, not human rights. And my comment to JOET (above) shows that my taking a position is more an invitation to exploratory conversation than it is a dogmatic announcement about what to do. / I’ve never said that minorities should be “denied their rights to speak up”: that would be government (police) action. The action I’m suggesting is minority-action (which applies to all Americans, for all of us are in minorities though only some of us are majority): let’s act civilly, disturbing the social tranquility (“peace”) only where we have good reason to hope that the disturbance we occasion will change sacred custom. / To argue that one citizen has as much social “right” as another to cause such disturbance is to act as if America were a religion-neutral secular SOCIETY, instead of only having a religion-open GOVERNMENT—a distinction which does not exist in the secularist mind.

HERB

You read me right, & I thank you--& I thank those three Muslim ex-students of yours who emailed you “Merry Christmas!”

DAREN NIKLEROG

As the world’s Christians number more than twice the world’s Muslims—2.1 billion to 1 billion—what a shock to read your complaint about my “distortions of fact” & then read your claim that “there are far more muslims in the world than christians”!

Sorry 'bout that AQ.

Forgot to add my "handle" CY

A Question:

Well, truly, I am sorry to see that your questions were much more than I thought. Why? For the reason that I owe you an answer that requires my best effort(such as it is)

So, I will do my best.

First:
The easy one: "with the coining of 'Our Creator' (additionally, I was wondering- does the 'Our' pertain to you and yours, pagans in general, or all of us?".

I used the word "Our" to refer to my Creator as I understand "my" Creator. I understand "my Creator" to be "Our Creator", i.e., I believe we, each of us - you and I - as well as all of creation to be the product of the "Creator".

Second:
"Curiosity in the combination of two words (Creator and pagans) got the best of me."

I do not understand your curiosity with respect to the combination of the words "Creator" and "pagans". Did not the Creator create the pagans and do not the Pagans worship the Creator (forgive my confusion at capitalization)?

Third:
I had not taken your comments to be rude; I had reserved judgment.

Forth:
Intrigue? I cannot imagine why you are intrigued and therefore, I do not know how to respond.

Fifth:
"Who"? Well......., shortcomings in language and understanding preclude me from defining "Who".

The best answer I can offer is that "Who" is very much like "Tao". I believe that, ultimately, "Who " will be known and understood in-toto by all.

Sixth:
"Just wondering what your view is,........".

View? (he laughed as he pondered the question).

I am a seeker, AQ, my view is always changing. Just about the time I think I understand, the Creator lets me know that I am not yet there.

'Tis the season to give reason...or, apparently, to perpetuate idiocy.

It seems the Dr. thinks that grinchy jew got what he deserved. He should have just shutup and smiled, or maybe forced himself to return a hearty "Merry Christmas" in kind so as not to be a "party pooper".

While the doctor includes far too many distortions of fact (Ahh, maybe that's what he is a doctor of?)to list in this comment, the very premise that permeates his commentary can be summed up as "majority rules". American culture is primarily christian and, therefore, everyone else should go along for the ride and either learn to enjoy it, or at least pretend that they do.

Well, in this age of globalization, one should note that there are far many more muslims in the world than christians. So, in an effort to bring about a more unified world, I implore the doctor to publicly declare his love for Allah and to keep his christ worship to himself.

Athena:
**Here's a thought... if Christians are allowed to put up creches and large slabs of stone with the 10 Commandments on them in public spaces, can Pagans put up a Maypole and dance around it on Beltane? I'd love to dance the Maypole in front of City Hall!**

Give me that old time religion....see you at the pole! :)

Here's a thought... if Christians are allowed to put up creches and large slabs of stone with the 10 Commandments on them in public spaces, can Pagans put up a Maypole and dance around it on Beltane? I'd love to dance the Maypole in front of City Hall!

I read through about a third of the comments, and, while I was entertained, I can't get over the number of comments that appear to be in response to some message other than the one I read from Rev. Elliot. I did not read a "dominionist" screed as some have claimed it was. I read a measured plea for tolerance. There are and always have been a lot of Christians in this country, more than of any other religion, and they've influenced our culture profoundly, for both good and ill. So what if Christmas has become a national holiday and is at the same time the biggest retail festival of the year. Jesus would probably be appalled at what we've made of the festival of his birth, starting with the fact that it almost certainly is not on the date of his birth. If you don't want to say "Merry Christmas," don't. If Bill O'Reilly wants to maunder on about a war on Christmas, let him. I don't have to listen to it. I'll say "Merry Christmas" to people that I know celebrate it but not to those that I don't know. Of course, three Moslem former students of mine have emailed me "Merry Christmas" greetings, one from Gaza, one from UAE, and one from Detroit. I'm grateful for them.

Let's recognized that we can have national festivals that have religious implications for some without violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

C Y,

Curiosity in the combination of two words (Creator and pagans) got the best of me. Not intending to be rude. My apologies if taken so.

My thoughts with regard to your statments were nothing but genuine intrigue...not only with the coining of 'Our Creator' (additionally, I was wondering- does the 'Our' pertain to you and yours, pagans in general, or all of us?)

The 'Who' is in reference to the use of the capitalization, intended or not necessarily intended. Is it refering to a proper name, person, object, place, project, institution, river, vessel, genus, culture, ethnic group, formal job title, book title, periodical, article, etc etc?

With regard to significance of 'Our Creator', that would be relative. Just wondering what your view is, basically because of my first statement above.

Best regards

May I humbly remind the verbose Dr. that the American religious "truth" system including its disputes with their ludicrous Huckabees and Romneys is a problem with 3% of the world population. We others don't give a .... if something is "American" or "un-American", but, of course, we are vitally affected by all this terrible nonsense.

For a non-American, the silly and out-of-date notion that America is the navel of the world, the Dr.'s arguments are more than offensive: America, "thank god", is not the world ("deo favente"). Considering the statement that "unity" is above "freedom" reminds us oldies of Hitler: "Du bist nichts, dein Volk ist alles" (you are nothing, your nation is everything"). And he was successful. Fascism pure. The only Hitler opponents, the social democrats, were quickly eliminated politically and physically as a "factor disturbing unity" - with exactly those arguments, agreed upon by a gullible majority.

The world is afraid of religious America. Where is the Dr.'s criticism of "Rapture" a notion reminiscent of Koresh and his ilk, a degenerate suicidal yearning of a once great nation?

I am one of the seculars or secularists, never mind the difference, who the Dr. thinks are the root of evil, and I am proud of it. After WWII we learned the hard way that democracy should strive for honesty and accountability, not superstition, opportunism and hypocrisy.

And again, I thank the Pagans for their uprightness and reason.

A Q:

I've always wondered if it rude to inquire of a stranger without first stating one's thoughts.

Please explain your curiosity. Please explain the significance of your expression: 'Capitalized "Creator"'.

Let's hear what you mean by the word "Who" in your question. That will help me better understand the level of answer required.

Thank you,
Cool Yule

>>Our Creator..

>>..we pagans

A question to the person who quoted the above:
Curious. Capitalized 'Creator'. Who is that to you?

thanks

Favoring the country's primary religion? Those evil secularists?

It is both incredulous and disingenuous that most neochristians who would find using Christmas and the cross of Jesus vulgar and crass in marketing merchandise or cars have no problem with using the same Holy icons to package the neocon political campaign of Pastor Mike Huckabee. How is Huckabee's "Christmas" campaign commercial complete with a glowing cross any different than using Christian symbols to sell cars

The neocon Perkins automotive family in Colorado Springs, for example, could rename their dealerships "Christian Chrysler" with ad copy that offers "Family Values," Celestial Savings," glowing cross license plate frames, fiber-optic lit fish insignia on the grill and a promotion for a free AK-47 automatic rifle rack for use against illegal Mexicans, in the "war against secularists" and to "take back the Nation for Christ."

Romney could resurrect the family car business with Mormon Motors - "Check out the 2008 Kolob, complete with a golden horn of Morni.

Offended? Before you hit the "Report Offensive Commnets" button, think about using the Lord and his Cross for marketing a political campaign. Is this anyway to celebrate Jesus' birthday?

At least two posters have referred to Willis Elliott as "erudite." He is not. He is verbose and mush-mouthed. Regardless of your feelings on his theological views, reading one of his essays is like wading hip-deep through a sea of cotton candy.

Happy Every Day!

Eclati-ON's have MEMETICS , via Prophet DAWKINS et al!

May XTRA Photons shine on all O.U.R. Kinders , In Sweet sweet America & in our Friendly's Nation's!

Praise The holy No Man Lord G-D Eponymous ECLAT + "i" = LIFE/Photons PHILOSOPHY!

We are Together forever mitt Source one & with "IT" (aka Loed ECLATi)!

Ya Ya YO ALL! < ?: +)/ Ummm Umm Goddy G-dda! Eeeeeee Haaaaa Cowboys & Gal's!

Happy Yuletide,

Our Creator has begun the lengthening of daylight and there isn't a thing Christians, Mormons, Jews or anyone else can do about it. Pagan prayers and offerings will rule as they have from time immemorial.

No amount of Christian, Muslim, or Jewish prayers will prevail over our celebrations tonight or the Sun rise tomorrow.

What fun!! Presents! Santa Claus! Whoops, did we pagans co-opt a Christian word - Saint Nick?? - just a translation of Julenissen? - hmmmm - no matter - Pagan and Christian children world-wide are waiting to hear the jingle bells of Dasher,Dancer, Comet, and the others.

...Confusion.

"Your premise is that “all religions require equal representation” in “the public square.” That is precisely what is in question, & I consider it an anti-American notion (as destructive of the unique American Mind)."

It is NOT Anti American to want to be included when one religion foists its presence in the public square. And then insists that others subscribe to their worldview, and declare 'war on Christmas' when other people who happen to believe differently want their symbols displayed as well and put up a fight when denied this basic right.

Either allow all faiths to be represented and given equal footing, or allow NONE of them, not even Christianity, in the public square, which would also include taking the Ten Commandments off of federal buildings. America is more than just Christianity. Like it or not.

You are no progressive, sir. Progressives learn to understand those people around them as *human*, rather than 'Anti- American' or 'bible haters' or whatever biased language you are using.

You have once again not addressed the point that was put to you, that you state that any 'minority' with a differing point of view be denied their rights as Americans. To be considered 'party poopers' or 'not American' and therefore unworthy of the basic right to speak up to promote change. It's turning back the clock to the pre-suffrage, pre civil rights movement.

It's pure bigotry, and promotes division.

That's not what America was, is, or ever will be.

The reason I bring this up, is, because this morning I was watching "Fox & Friends" on the Fox News Channel, and when they were done interviewing a guest, they said "happy holidays to you."

This struck me as odd because the Fox Network is one of the prime motivators that there is a "war on Christmas." Yet, even the personalities on Fox say "happy holidays." And why do they say "happy hollidays?" Because it is just how we all talk, and it is what we have all been brought up to say. It is a sort of quasi-formal well-wishing to strangers and people you do not know well, like "have a nice day."

Even people who want to concentrate on saying "Merry Christmas" and mean only to say "Merry Christmas" have moments of slippage, when they unconsiously say "happy holidays," because that is just how we all talk. Isn't it?

I have always thought the the greeting "Merry Christmas" was a more intimate greeting, reserved for close loved ones, used mainly on Christmas Eve, and the very day of Christmas, itself. Am I wrong? You mean all of this time, I have been mistaken?

By Gosh, darn it. I didn't mean to be saying it wrong.

Daniel: I was raised Catholic, and indeed, I recall just as you do that Happy Holidays was a perfectly good greeting throughout the season for good christians. I suspect O'Reilly is just in denial. As I just posted, I think the problem is that Dr. E has a perfectly good historical perspective, but has reached the wrong conclusion from it. I have all the respect in the world for the American Mind he describes, and we should cherish, celebrate, and certainly remember it accurately whenever revisionists raise their ugly heads, but by no means need we impose it by force or any other means, or even ask that we all be polite and let christians act like the season and the country are exclusively theirs by laying low for a month or so.

Let us suppose that the American Mind was indeed christian to some extent. And let us further suppose that an actual mushy unity in which everyone practiced some kind of universalized faith is as evil as Dr. E suggests (not that I think anyone is proposing same - I think it's a straw man for the good doctor). It simply does not follow that preserving or restoring the American Mind is fitting or proper or a good idea. I cannot find any good in asserting that we should all act like america is christian except in the privacy of our own homes, and refrain from any effort to celebrate anything else but Christmas, or from asking Huckabee to acknowledge that some of us aren't Baptists, or that celebrating the birth of christ isn't the only important thing to do. I don't care what the American Mind was. This is now, and non christians are not merely the guests of the christians who think they own the American Mind. Dr. E, your history is much better than your reasoning from it to current social philosophy.

Dr Elliott is mainly a theologian and writes from a theological point of view, and he seems to be targeting other theologians. Therefore, I too, among many other commenters, often cannot understand his ponts very well.

To me, theologians are the ones who fill in all the blanks in the belief system, that most of us are not smart enough to think of, or are not interested in enough to work out, because we are busy, busy, busy, trying to stay afloat in the world. Theologians are the ones who tell us what we should believe.

Once, I wrote a criticism of his remarks, and he gave me a very harsh rebuke, ouch! which did hurt my feelings. However, I respect his abilities and his age, and cannot be too critical of him. After all "theology" is evidently a big field, and alot of very intelligent people seem to be heavily into it.

Christmas is sort of mingled with Christianity, and there is THAT word "Christ" right there in Christmas (at least in the English language, which was derived from Latin) to indicate its Christian connections.

But, oh brother! Christmas! What a mess!

Christmas is the conflation of a complex Christian festival with the ancient pagan rites of the Winter Soltice, which was later conflated with the figure of St. Nicolas who was kind to children, which was later conflated with "A Visit from St Nick" and the Coca-Cola advertising campaign to give us "Santa", which was conflated with the novelest Charles Dickens' depiction of Victorian Christmas, which was conflated with the German practices of the Christmas tree, borrowed from Queen Victoria's German husband, Prince Albert, the tree being a pyramid, so it could be lit with candles, without burning any over-hanging branches, which later morphed into electric lights on the tree, which morphed again, to lights, lights, lights, everywhere, lights.

And all these many convergences and conflations, then were sucked up into the mighty whirlwind of capitalism and secular materialsm, so that it has balooned and morphed into a truely overwhelming, gigantic, and profligate socio-economic phenomenon, which grips the whole month of December, and dominates, intrusively, into every aspect of life for every man, woman, and child in North America, no matter whether they are Methodists, Moslems, Jews, Catholics, Pagans, or atheists. The plaintive cries of Muslims for some recognition this time of year is just part of this cacophony, barely noticable above the din.

Of course, under the American legal doctrine of "separation of church and state" which I believe and hold to radically, and in the extreme, anyone can put Chirst back into Christmas. They can skip all the rest, and just go to church on Christmas Eve and Christmas day.

And by the way, since we are on this subject, when I was a little kid in the 1950's, when "everyone" was a Christian, we said Merry Christmas on Christmas Eve and on Christmas Day as a joyous proclamation to our closest and dearest loved ones, both in person and on the telephone; otherwise, we always said Happy Holidays; I remember this clearly and distinctly; does anyone else have such memories as this?

As per many NT exegetes to include Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists, there is "No Historic Reason for the Season".

There was no Virgin birth. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/026_Jesus_Virginally_Conceived
And there was no Star of Bethlem.

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/369_Star_of_Revelation

"Gerd Lüdemann
Commenting on the infancy narratives overall, Luedemann [Jesus, 124-29] concludes that Luke and Matthew represent "two equally unhistorical narratives." He cites the occurrence of a miraculous heavenly sign at key points in the life of Mithridates VI in a history written by Justinus (active in the reign of Augustus, 2 BCE to 14 CE). "

So nativity scenes on government property in the UK or the USA or wherever are basic representations of fiction and are equivalent to having representations of Santa Claus and his reindeer and/or Yule trees. No harm, no foul!!

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

PAGANPLACE

You persist in personalizing historical realities, reducing “you”—plural (what Christians did) down to “you”—singular (what I do). As a historian, I resist anti-historical re-imaginings of history. As a Christian, I witness for the revelation of God through Jesus Christ my Savior & Lord—a witness which indeed clashes with alternative world-paradigms. As an American, I champion my country’s unique contribution to history, viz. the particular diversity-in-unity made possible by the structural recognition of “church” & “state” as separate structural realities. I hope you can cool it enough to have a civil conversation about these matters.

I must point out....

1....That your (probably unconscious) stratagem has been to claim that the whole conflictual “culture war” is all in my mind—confined to, even started by, me. I can understand your finding some comfort in this though-false confinement of the opposition to your position, but the stratagem is a diversion from your dealing with the realities I’ve been adducing.

2....That you are (unconsciously) hypocritical in treating me as an enemy while complaining that I see enemies where there are none.

MAD LOVE

Norman Rockwell’s America wasn’t perfect, nor is ours. / Blacks do appear in his SEP covers, e.g. on “The Four Freedoms.” / I fought with MLKing, not against him.

As for “unity” being “much closer to ‘egalitarianism’,” did you notice that your dictionary-reference has “4. absence of diversity”? / In defending the (original-originalist) American Mind, I’ve been speaking for what in you dictionary is “5. oneness of mind....”

As for “the Jew who got put in his place,” you imply I’m antisemitic. The truth is that I’m so prosemitic that I was chosen to preach in a NY synagogue on the occasion of the Munich Olympics slaughter of Jews by Palestinians; & I taught a course for rabbis (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform) involving the language of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).

PRIVER

Your premise is that “all religions require equal representation” in “the public square.” That is precisely what is in question, & I consider it an anti-American notion (as destructive of the unique American Mind).

No, I’m not trying to “turn back the clock.” I’m a progressive Democrat! But Santayana was correct: Those who forget the past are condemned to repeating it.

It's funny, then, 'Reverend', that you still hide behind your degree and never actually addressed the point that was made to you- that you would love to turn back the clock and take away the gains that women and minorities have made over the past century because to you, it's 'disrupting' the 'order' in a quest for what you laughingly term 'false freedom.' You can dress it up with pretty yet useless language, but it boils down to bigotry, in its purest form.

Funny also that it says 'the US is not founded on the Christian religion' and not 'the US government is not founded on the Christian religion'. Projection again, sir. And we are still here to make the point that if elements of Christianity are to be pushed into the public square, then all religions require equal representation. Including those you don't agree with.

And Christianity is not in any of the founding documents.
Sorry, nice try.

Again, I hope your students are smart enough to recognize the fact that once again, you teach about belief systems that a) are not yours and therefore your 'references' are chock full of bad information and b)incapable of seeking information from others who might know better than you. And that adds up to a bad teacher.

"You speak of pagans who “gave” us Christians “this holiday.” They’re all dead; but if you could ask them, they’d say “We didn’t give them our holiday; they TOOK it!” Yes, & we intend to hold it against your re-taking of it. How can you claim that the competition is optional?"

You know, I questioned whether it was just bad writing that blurred your intent with the wink and nudge about the Jew who got put in his place. I've always tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you betray yourself, or rather reveal yourself, with that statement. Bad writing or not, contrarian or not, hair splitter or not, I think that is your true soul right there, and I think it is despicable.

I don't toss those words out lightly either.

Just for the record, sir, here is what dictionary.com has to say about "unity". I don't really see where "majority rules, all others shut up" fits in. In fact "unity" sounds a whole lot more like what we're asking for that what you're offering. Unity is much closer to "egalitarianism" than whatever it is that you are advocating.

u·ni·ty /ˈyunɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-ni-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties. 1. the state of being one; oneness.
2. a whole or totality as combining all its parts into one.
3. the state or fact of being united or combined into one, as of the parts of a whole; unification.
4. absence of diversity; unvaried or uniform character.
5. oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement.
6. Mathematics. a. the number one; a quantity regarded as one.
b. identity (def. 9).

7. (in literature and art) a relation of all the parts or elements of a work constituting a harmonious whole and producing a single general effect.
8. one of the three principles of dramatic structure (the three unities) derived from Aristotelian aesthetics and formalized in the neoclassic canon in which a play is required to represent action as taking place in one day (unity of time), as occurring within one place (unity of place), and as having a single plot with a beginning, middle, and end (unity of action).

I don't remember too many black folks in Norman Rockwell's America, do you? I'm sure they were around, but 'ol Norman didn't paint their separate but equal part of town, did he? Still, you would of thought that at least one black person might have wondered into the white dentist office, or one of the friendly white folks would have pulled out a chair and offered up a game of checkers, wouldn't you? Something? After all these are good All American White Christians, right?

But that was a quieter, gentler time, before black people started to really trouble the still serene waters of American life. Yes sir, the sixties were pretty hard times for Norman Rockwell's America, alright. Used to be a good Christian man could set his religious icons up anywhere he pleased. Hell, he could even set it on fire if he had a mind to.

That’s when the culture war really started if you ask me. But what do I know? I’m just a godless liberal after all. I’m sure if I had any conscience at all I would see that these God fearing Christians are just trying to restore America to her former glory. I mean whether it’s the wrong greeting on a subway train, or the wrong row of the bus, what’s the difference? Know your place or face the consequences. These brave culture warriors are going to make sure that the American way survives, God Bless ‘em.

And whatever perceived contradiction there may be to 'Christmas Elf,' I do just walk into it, *every time.* Cheers. :)

And everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned, while the worst are full of passionate intensity:

"You speak of pagans who “gave” us Christians “this holiday.” They’re all dead; but if you could ask them, they’d say “We didn’t give them our holiday; they TOOK it!” Yes, & we intend to hold it against your re-taking of it. How can you claim that the competition is optional? Conflict was not public until the revival of paganism (i.e., Neo-Paganism): can’t you see the irony in your false claim that we Christians caused the present culture-war conflict? "

I see a lot of irony, here, Reverend, but, no, I see nothing to dispute the fact that you are the aggressor in your own 'culture war,' here.

I see you clinging to things in unbecoming ways, and claiming others are trying to take them when they were never in your grasp in the first place.

If you believe you took these ideas by force of might, and that entitles you to something, well, Reverend, again I'm sad for you. I see a child throwing a tantrum over holiday decorations.

I do not see a justification for the beatings and disenfranchisement of others you advocate here every year, and *forget* about any sense of self-proclaimed moral superiority.

I suppose you'll be claiming you stole *common decency* from the Pagans or the Deists or the regular society that we've lived in these score centuries or so, fair and square, and ain't giving that back, either, 'Mine, mine, mine,' won't you?

Or have you already?

That's what you've been doing with your revisionism, you know, Reverend.

I don't know why you feel such need to declare others 'enemies,' but it's clear you have found some need to do so, perhaps to justify the depradations of people you support, or something that's happened to you, or that you've done to others.

But, no, Reverend. You may claim that Christians 'stole this tree or wreath or spirit of giving fair and square,' ...but it doesn't mean you control these things, ...you can't.

And, yeah. How can you *steal a spirit of giving?* Totally lost on me. But you claim many logical impossibilities.

Only question is how many people you hurt over this clinging and ambition of yours before you realize it.

Or do you *want* to?

Either way,

This is all you.

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

Blessed Yule, Reverend.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

TERRA 12.19 / 6:44p

“Evil Santa” must complain about your use of the genetic fallacy to attack the founders’ understanding of “God.” One of the tasks of historians of religion is to trace the uses of images & ideas in successions of religions; but it’s unhistorical to imagine that devotees of any particular religion are aware of such historical precedents. You may think “Ra” when you see God’s eye on our nation’s Great Seal, but our founders thought only “God” as they spoke of him in the discussion prior to the adoption of the Great Seal. (Yes, we have the record of that conversation.)

So much of such recidivist thinking derives support from the pseudo-history of deities concocted by Neo-Paganism. The notion that the Goddess preceded God is sheer fantasy, but it has become Neo-Pagan orthodox mythology.

You say my “unity is death to those who want freedom.” It’s a wash: I say your “freedom” is death to us who want the U.S. to survive in unity. Now, we might advance our conversation by my calling you a “Wicked Witch” & you calling me an “Evil Santa” if we both laughed—otherwise the uncivil conversation could move only in the direction of the polar opposite of “truth & reconciliation,” viz. violence.

Three days ago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 847, which affirms Christmas & Christianity (the religion of America’s founders). Go figure. “Evil Congress”? When you say “We [Pagans] will win,” you’re admitting there’s a war on. It’s childish to state or imply that I (we Christians) started it!

PRIVER

You say of me, “you don’t want TRUE freedom. You want ‘unity’....” Fightin’ words those: true/false. I might reply, “you want FALSE freedom,” an anarchic, unity-destroying all-religions-are-equal multiculturalism. Great sociologists (e.g., Robert Bellah) declare dangerously utopian the dream of a post-particular (i.e., a universal) culture & nation. America’s particular culture is, & always has been, Christian (rather than Muslim or anything else). The political claim is not that Christianity is the best religion, but only that it is ours as the religious component of the American Mind (the other component being the Enlightenment). It is just poor “history” to keep repeating that Christianity is not specifically in our OFFICIAL founding documents (except for the “our Lord [Jesus]” at the end of the Constitution): competent historians read also the multitudinous UNofficial materials, which contain quite specific Christian references.

Since God’s “eye” is a biblical image explained by the Great Seal’s designer as “the Eve of Providence” (“Providence” being a Christian name for God [as in Baptist-preacher Roger Williams’ naming of the R.I. capital]), there’s no historical justification for reaching back to its use in non-biblical religions, though your doing so illustrates the fact that there’s ANTI-biblical motivation in doing so.

The Treaty of Tripoli says (in context) that though Muslim nations are politically Muslim, the U.S. is not “founded on the Christian religion”: the church/state relationship in the U.S. is NOT PARALLEL to the religion-politics relationship in any Muslim country, so a political confrontation on the basis of religion between the U.S. & any Muslim nation is not a danger. What this precise-technical wording did was to cut off at the pass the Tripoli politicians who wanted to make this a war of religions. By “the United States,” this political document meant “the U.S. government.” While the U.S. is a predominantly Christian nation (people), as a state (government) is separates “church” (a Christian word) & “state”: thank God for the First Amendment! It was Christians, however, who formed the government—a reality HR 847 recognized three days ago in speaking of “the role Christians and Christianity played in the founding [sic] of the United States and in the founding of western civilization.” I give you back your words to a different end: “you can take that to the bank.”

As for “ideas that can be of assistance to the common good,” how come you think I’m against THAT? As water seeps in wherever there’s a level-or-lower opening, ideas flow; & good teachers further the flow of good, creative ideas as servants of God, who loves all his creatures. In an institution of higher education on Manhattan, I was “Dean of Exploratory Programs” because of my heuristic competence & enthusiasm: good ideas from whatever source, here I come! As for “those who can’t do, teach,” I was invited to teach on the basis of creative doing: for me, doing preceded teaching. How little you know about me, & how quick you have been to arrive at negative judgments!

PAGANPLACE

“Justifying thuggergy” matches nothing I’ve said; but if I’d said it, it would indeed be “evil.” How about confining your comments to reality?

In quotes, you speak of “’superior and exclusive morality.’” As that matches nothing I’ve said, how about confining your comments on what I’ve said to what I’ve said?

You said I made a negative comment about the greeting “Happy Holidays.” I did not mention that greeting.

Trojan Horses need attacking, but no nonChristian religion is a Trojan Horse except when it threatens unity by claiming equality with Christianity in the public sphere. Egalianity (since everybody’s equal, all cultures & religions are equal) is a religion challenging Christianity for predominance in America, including in the public sphere; & of course Christianity has accepted the challenge to engagement: it’s a Trojan Horse threatening UNITY, & we Christians are fighting it. Otherwise (in words of Wm. Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming”), “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world....”

If our distinctive American UNITY (with Christianity as the religious component) “fall[s] apart,” it will be replaced by a secular unity with humanistic secularism as the religious component. That unity would not be the same as that of the former USSR with its Marxist-utopian unrealistic optimism, but it would be post-American (replacing the American Mind with another mind). In his just-published A SECULAR AGE, the great philosopher Charles Taylor spells out the doom that can be expected from any deepening success of secularism; he hopes (as I do) for the victory of a reconceived theism. / You seem unaware of the fragility of America’s unity, & of the present multi-religious egalian threat to the continuing of the American Mind & Way of Life.

You speak of pagans who “gave” us Christians “this holiday.” They’re all dead; but if you could ask them, they’d say “We didn’t give them our holiday; they TOOK it!” Yes, & we intend to hold it against your re-taking of it. How can you claim that the competition is optional? Conflict was not public until the revival of paganism (i.e., Neo-Paganism): can’t you see the irony in your false claim that we Christians caused the present culture-war conflict?

Hmmm, "Deflawing" a contraction of the phrase "Correct The Flaws" apparently is not understood by The Jihadist. Strange since she appears to understand all there is about every thing else (except her warmongering, warped religion).

But I hear she is going through the Five Step Program to Correct the Flaws in the koran and Islam so maybe her mind is severely challenged these days.

And last time I checked Eboo Patel, Mo, Ahmed from Bahrain and Mo from Canada were male Muslims.

*just PP trying on a new screen name*

Does this make me look old?

Hrm.

Ah, I'll get back to it.

Oh, and, Reverend, this is not in some imaginary spirit of a Pagan trying to take away your holiday.

This is in the spirit of our mutual ancestors, who gave you this holiday once before.

And I'm here to offer it to you again.

It's not like you say.

It's something else.

The kind of hope you can't exegize your Bible and try to control.

It's simpler than that.

Much simpler.

You're not 'defending America,' you're... after something else.

You could just come home.

Ease up.

Anyone comes to try and take your God from you in reality, they'll have to go through me, first. That's one of those things you don't understand about my people.

But you'll have to take us at our word on that.

"DEFLAW the koran?"

Ohhhh, I seee.............!!!!!!

I had thought Concerned the Christian Now Liberated meant he want to "Deflower" Muslim virgins, so fast did I just skip over his posts in On Faith, and so obsessed is he with Muslim women who drop by in On Faith threads.

Only one match? Do you both need gasoline too? Might as well go all the way and burn the Bible, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishsads, the Dhammapada, Age of Reason, Mad Magazine.....

Just take that match and light up candles for Jesus if you're Christians, or for world peace if you're atheists during this festive holiday season.

"J"