Protestantism

» Migisi - CHRISTIANS outlawed Christmas

.
Anyone catch the program "Christmas Unwrapped: The History of Christmas" on the History Channel? It was very good.
.
Read some highlights here: http://www.history.com/minisite.do?conte...
.
An Outlaw Christmas
http://www.history.com/minisite.do?conte...
.
"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."

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - CHRISTIANS outlawed Christmas

In response to CHRISTIANS outlawed Christmas posted by Migisi:

.
"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, canceled Christmas."
.
This is an example out of the long historical line of the influence religion exerts as it is exercised in government.
.
There are those "Christians" that will NOT celebrate Christmas in any way.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Cromwell, the first Scrooge

.
Oliver Cromwell and the original PC brigade --
Attempts to ban Christmas festivities have been with us for centuries, says Ted Vallance
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/?storyID=4...
.
(quote)
"A recent survey has claimed (on rather shaky evidence) that three in four bosses are banning Christmas decorations. Cue panto-season boos and hisses. Yet the reputed actions of these latter-day Scrooges are nothing compared to the efforts of Oliver Cromwell's Parliaments.
.
"On Christmas Day 1656, Parliament met to consider further measures against what one MP called "this foolish day's solemnities". Puritans argued Christmas was a Catholic relic which, they not unreasonably suggested, simply provided an excuse for drunkenness and gluttony.
.
"In 1646 Parliament's new form of public worship had explicitly outlawed the festival, and in 1647 the Commons had passed a law suppressing the feast, an ordinance that was re-issued throughout the 1650s.
.
"These laws were, however, honoured more in the breach than the observance. There were pro-Christmas riots in 1646 and 1647, shops and businesses were reportedly closed on Christmas Day in 1650, 1652 and 1656, and pubs did a roaring trade. In December 1652, one newspaper happily informed its readers that, with taverns full, Bacchus was "bearing the bell amongst the people".
.
"In the same year, the Royalist highwayman and soldier, John Hind, wrote of a "Christmas lark" in which Hind, dressed as a woman, robbed a lecherous lawyer in a Chancery Lane brothel. One of the MPs attending the debate on December 25, 1656, complained that he "could get not rest all night" due to Londoners' raucous Christmas celebrations.
.
"Those prone to getting in a lather about the supposed PC campaign to cancel Christmas should take encouragement from the ultimate failure of this earlier attempt. As soon as the monarchy was restored in 1660, the winter festivities were vigorously revived. Cromwell, the English Republic and the New Model Army had proved no match for Father Christmas, minced pies and plum pudding."

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - DECLARING a NATIONAL religion

.
...influence religion exerts as it is exercised in government.
.
Yep.... Christmas was declared a US federal holiday on June 26, 1870. And here's Congress' most recent (this month) declaration on Christianity and Christmas. Doesn't Congress have more pressing matters???
.
December 10, 2007
Congress to say Christmas is important. Sun and Moon declared good too.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1...
.
(quote from mid-article)...
"Update - The House passed this bill today. The vote, surprisingly, was 372-9, with 10 members also voting "Present," meaning they took no position on the legislation, and 40 not voting. One of the "Present" votes was cast by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). More Democrats -195 - voted for the bill than Republicans, 177.
.
"The nine members who voted against the bill - God bless them! - are Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Pete Stark (D-Calif.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).
.
"Here's the text of H.Res. 847, just so you know how important Christianity and Xmas are:
.
"Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.
.
"Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;
.
"Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;
.
"Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;
.
"Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible;
.
"Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;
.
"Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its roots in Christianity;
.
"Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;
.
"Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and
.
"Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore be it
.
"Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
.
"(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;
(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;
(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world."
.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - DECLARING a NATIONAL religion

In response to DECLARING a NATIONAL religion posted by Migisi:

Congressional passage of this resolution does not declare a national religion. I would have voted in favor of it, because everything it says is true - or at least should be true. There are those who (sadly) do NOT respect Christianity, but thankfully, their sentiments were strongly overwhelmed in congressional voting.

» pink101 - Congress Shall Make No Law

In response to DECLARING a NATIONAL religion posted by BrianTubbs:
.
And, here, I thought you believed in the Constitution and its Amendments.
.
What about, "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION..."
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Congress Shall Make No Law

In response to Congress Shall Make No Law posted by pink101:

The First Amendment should be understood according to its original understanding (that means as defined by our Founding Fathers - the men who wrote and ratified the amendment), unless and until it is duly changed by the amendment process.

Migisi is correct that that the United States didn't really celebrate Christmas nationally until the mid-1800s. (Were it not for the Civil War, they probably would've approved Christmas as a national holiday before 1870). But let's not get distracted from the main point.

To the charge that this resolution represents a conflict with the First Amendment, I say "BUNK!" The First Congress - the same body that approved the First Amendment and sent it to the states - is the same Congress that called on President Washington to issue a national day of thanksgiving. (And they understood that national day of thanksgiving to be overtly RELIGIOUS). What's more, the First Congress authorized taxpayer-PAID chaplains in the military and in both houses of Congress. And, if I'm not mistaken, authorized the printing and distribution of Bibles to the Indians. So, don't tell me that our Founders would've had a problem with a congressional resolution endorsing Christianity as "one of the great religions of the world."

» pink101 - A Long Time Ago

In response to Congress Shall Make No Law posted by BrianTubbs:
.
So, don't tell me that our Founders would've had a problem with a congressional resolution endorsing Christianity as "one of the great religions of the world."
.
I can read what is plainly stated in our U.S. Constitution and I can interpret it so that I understand what is being said--all gobble-de-good aside..
.
I don't need a lawyer to tell me what the words, respecting, and, establishment, mean. Perhaps you do?
.
If your understanding were correct, we would have had a national religion a long time ago. Obviously, you are wrong.
.
Religion is being shoved down our throats if we like it or not.
.
This too, will come to an end.
.
We must be careful what we ask for. We might get it in spades.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Individual Interpretation???

In response to A Long Time Ago posted by pink101:

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. This is a nation of LAWS and not a nation of individual interpretations and opinions. And the fairest, most reasonable manner in which to understand our laws is to look first (of course) at the plain language, but also at the original understanding of those terms when that language was approved.

This isn't "gobble-de-good," Pink. The English language has evolved since the 18th century. So, to properly understand the meaning of the First Amendment, you HAVE to go back to the 18th century - and understand the meaning of that amendment WHEN IT WAS RATIFIED! THAT is the only valid and legitimate meaning.

OBVIOUSLY...the big caveat to what I'm saying is the amending process. If and when the Constitution is amended, those amendments can and will change the meaning of earlier sections of the Constitution. The 14th amendment, for example, applied the Bill of Rights (the 1st amendment being one) to the states. Thus, it isn't just "Congress shall make no law...," that provision now applies to state legislatures and localities.

So, I'm fine with change. But change must be done the RIGHT way. It must follow the correct PROCESS.

» pink101 - Individual Interpretation???

In response to Individual Interpretation??? posted by BrianTubbs:

.
????
.
It looks like you went off on a tangent that has something to do with how the Constitution should be interpreted in case of some controversy. Of course, that gets settled by the courts and it IS argued by lawyers.
.
But, I don't need that for my interpretation. When it comes to the word, respect, it means to regard highly and to show esteem. And, Christianity is an establishment of religion. Personally, I think that act of Congress that is the subject of these posts is what is wrong. We're getting an over dose of religion here lately. It is dividing us and it will turn us into a sectarian society unless we bring it to an end--the sooner the better. Otherwise, we will suffer the evils of sectarianism.
.
I stand on my personal interpretations. I know how that works. If I am challenged in court, I had better be prepared to defend myself. In the meantime...

.

-- posted by pink101