Xref: utzoo alt.flame:1302 talk.religion.misc:4122
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!pyramid!prls!philabs!ttidca!quad1!oleg
From: oleg@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Theological Debates
Keywords: Holiday
Message-ID: <1428@quad1.quad.com>
Date: 13 Jan 88 23:50:32 GMT
References: <1415@quad1.quad.com> <4108@uwmcsd1.UUCP>
Reply-To: oleg@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: HASA
Lines: 41

This has stopped being a flame -- lets take it back to t.r.m, OK?

In article <4108@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>>tribute to the Old Gods (as is common in many Xtianized cultures). And at some
>>point the Church decided to do away with the pagan celebration by co-opting it
>AH! SOMEBODY UNDERSTANDS! But we can be pretty sure that the early Church 
>celebrated Christ's birth in some manner, though not at a standard time.

Can we really?  I am not at all sure.  Anybody with a better knowledge of
early Xtian history?

>>You may find it educational to find out what the names for Xmass are in other
>>languages.
>That's for sure (Nativity, Noel, ...), which makes the point all the more that
>a name is not an essential part of a holiday.  This means that even though the
>name Christmas contains Christ's name in it, it is not an essential infringement
>on one's religious freedoms to celebrate Christmas in public.

Sigh...  You missed it Mark.  That was the hole point of my suggestion -- in
many (most?) other languages the name for Xmas unambiguosly states that it
is a celebration of "The Birth," "The Birth of Christ."  Why would anyone who
does not worship or even believe in Jesus Christ's exsitance celebrate "His" 
birthday?

>I do not believe it is an infringement on
>anyone's religious freedom to celebrate ANY holiday in public, regardless of 
>what religion it comes from.  This is another, better, way to interpret the 
>amendment of the freedom of religious practice.  It is another way for the
>government to show a lack of preference for a specific religion.

The argument was NOT that a celebration in public is an infringement on other
people's rights, but that a *governmental* (and business) sponsorship of 
such celebrations to the exclusion of others IS.  I.e. when an office holds
a *Xmas* party, the practice and beliefs of Xtianity are encouraged and 
supported, to the exclusion and detriment of *other* religions.

-- 
Oleg Kiselev  --  oleg@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg
HASA, "A" Division

DISCLAIMER:  I don't speak for my employers.