On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 14:42 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Frank Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: > > > >> But the main point that Bill was making is that Christmas was very far > from > >> a universally practiced holiday among Christians in British North > America, > >> and many localities were practically Christmas-free for quite a while > >> especially New England before the revolution, and the southeast for > decades > >> after 1800. > > >What this means, I don't honestly know. > > It means that in the middle of the 18th Century, in much of New England > (Which was not known for its religious tolerance!), celebrating Christmas > was either illegal or the sort of thing that'd make one very unpopular; and > then in the early 19th Century, the religions that were strongly > predominant in the Southeast (similar to today, Baptist) also tended to > cast Christmas out of their vicinity. It took the influence of New York & > Penna. to re-establish Christmas as a respectable holiday during the 19th > C., and that was contending against the revivalist-temperance movement that > began ca. 1800 as the popular 2nd wave of the Awakening.
It is important to understand the differences in how the hollyday was celebrated then and now. Going by the descriptions given in journals kept by colonial writers and visitors, what was celebrated then is not what is celebrated now. Indeed the celebrations common at the time were more in line with what I referred to as the Christmas story in my earlier post. The celebrations were about partying and being hospitable. The Puritans were the most set against Christmas because of it's pagan origins and the fact that (according tho their interpretation) the scriptures commanded them to not partake of the ways of the pagan. Massachusetts was not the only place that had laws against it. Connecticut is another. Many of the New England colonies/states had laws against it. Indeed, some of them were quite specific: they were laws against celebrating Christmas using Christianity's symbols! I'll restate for clarity just in case someone didn't get it. Some places in Colonial America had laws against celebrating Christmas in any way other than pagan: they wanted it kept strictly separate form Christianity. The first three states to declare it a state holiday were located in the south, to no great suprise. Alabama in 1836; and Louisiana and Arkansas, both in 1838. Prior to the Civil War the issue of celebrating Christmas was a very divisive one; one that was pretty much North vs. South. > > >I believe the original thread here suggested something on the order of > >what was acceptable in America insofar as a strong hyper-Calvinism, > >originated largely from dissatisfaction with British origin migrated > >to America and established blocks of religious theocratic control. > >New England was certainly the centre of that, but I doubt anyone can > >suggest that once British control was established, that was the norm > >throughout the Colonies. All I am suggesting is that it didn't really > >go much further than New England. ... > >At the same time, the official British government, certainly did not > >despise Christmas, as the Anglican Church put it in the Church > >calendar, just as the Roman Catholics had done before, as well as the > >Lutherans that migrated since had imported. Now you're stuck, or so > >it seems, with defending an idea that Calvinism was REALLY the REAL > >pre revolution and post revolution fashion of that time. > > >I strongly doubt that that ever was the case. ... > >As I wrote above, most people simply did what their cultural > >orientation assumed that they would do. Nothing like this was ever as > >I recall historically codified into law. At least until prohibition. > > No, the phrase "banned in Boston" exists for a reason. They really did > enact some of their religion into law. They couldn't quite get the degree > of suppression of the Catholics they'd wanted to, but they did manage to > get them to finance the basically Congregationalist (or > Congregationalist-Unitarian) public schools. "In 1645 they actually passed a law in parliament which actually forbid the celebration of Christmas. They called it idolatry, the period of abomination, the work of the devil. And anybody caught celebrating would be fined or in some cases put in jail. These became even stricter, a few years later, when parliament passed an even stricter law in some cases requiring imprisonment for up to 6 months if you celebrated Christmas." -- Vaughn Bryant heads the Anthropology Department at Texas A&M University, 2001 This, the historians will note, is during the Protestant Reformation. This is also, English parliament. The law was repealed several years later. Remember, it was the Protestant reformists who were "kicked out" of England for being too stuffy that founded the colonies. ;)[1] Massachusetts had Christmas banned for 22 years --- though "only" a 5 schilling fine as noted in my earlier post. "The Puritans knew what subsequent generations would forget; that when the Church, more than a millennium earlier, had placed Christmas Day in late December, the decision was part of what amounted to a compromise, and a compromise for which the Church paid a high price. Late-December festivities were deeply rooted in popular culture, both in observance of the winter solstice and in celebration of the one brief period of leisure and plenty in the agricultural year. In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior's birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it always had been. From the beginning, the Church's hold over Christmas was (and remains still) rather tenuous. There were always people for whom Christmas was a time of pious devotion rather than carnival, but such people were always in the minority. It may not be going too far to say that Christmas has always been an extremely difficult holiday to Christianize. Little wonder that the Puritans were willing to save themselves the trouble." --Nissenbaum[2] Nissenbaum also tells us that in almanacs of the day, the date of December 25 was listed without comment, "or it would contain a notice that one of the county courts was due to sit that day-an implicit reminder that in New England, December 25 was just another workday" [2]. Social historians point out much of the "celebration" as being very "not pious" by observing that during the early Christmas time celebrations there were tremendous (i.e. statistically very significant) upswings in premarital pregnancy. Multiple scholars of Christian history and theory have claimed, with justification IMO, that the true date of the birth of the Christ is unknown. nor are they alone. Ezra Styles[3] in 1776 observed in his diary on Christams day: "This day the nativity of our blessed Savior is celebrated through three quarters of Christendom. . .; but the true date is unknown. On any day I can readily join with my fellow Christians in giving thanks to God for his unspeakable gift, and rejoice with them in the birth of a Savior. Tho' it had been the will of Christ that the anniversary of his birth should have been celebrated, he would at least let us have known the day." In Mass. the banning of Christmas was repealed year slater because they felt they had stamped it out. Indeed Judge Samuel Sewall of the time noted with apparent pride that everyone went to work "as normal" on December 25th. Even the baking of Mince Meat Pies during that time of year had been banned! These events should not be suprising to those who've studied history. Indeed the reach of Puritan though went further than most realize in early government. In 1647 they outlawed preaching at weddings. Up until that time marriages were (get this) civil contracts done by a civil magistrate; though preaching was still allowed. They were firmly rooted in a belief that marriage was purely secular and that the Church should have nothing to do with it. They believed marriage was a ... government function. Of course, they famously despised lawyers banning them from all sorts of things. Virginia even banned them outright for several years. In Massachusetts Bay it was a crime to make money representing someone in a court of law. Regarding the date ont eh Church calendars, On the medieval church calendar December 24 was Adam and Eve Day. It was the day they took the proverbial bite. Further, not until 1884 was Christmas decreed as a Holy Day of Obligation[4] by Catholic bishops in the United States. This was after commercialization of the holly days was used to "tame" it from the Mardi Gras like celebrations of the prior few thousands of years. The "taming" of Christmas began in earnest in America in the 1800s. I believe Robert already pointed out who was involved in this, but I'll clarify since it will provide you (Frank) avenues of research to counter your strong disbelief in the facts that we are telling you. Clement Moore and Washington Irving felt that their social class and indeed their authority as a ruling class was under siege by Christmas. Why? Go back to my first post where I list the origins of it. Recall that the celebrations were about a levelling of the classes, or in some cases a reversal of them. This frightened and offended the ruling elites so they had to do something about it. They were known as the Knickerbockers; they were mad as hell and were not going to take it any more. They managed to get new stories written, "massaged" old stories into "new old traditions", and invented the "new" Christmas story. it is here that we see the origin of the gifts being for *children*. I know, Frank, it is difficult for you to believe the origins of the Christmas holly day. It is so for most Christians as they were raised under the falsehood that it has, is, and shall be of Christian faith. it is one area of mirth for me as Christians now lament the commercialization of Christmas. They claim it is "taking over" the real meaning of Christmass. A bit like the coal calling the pot and kettle black. I know it is hard for Christians of today to believe that Christmas was in fact *made illegal* in this country, and indeed even in merry old England. Yet when you study the origins and look at the practice prior to the late 1800's it makes sense. Why would the Puritans NOT want to ban sexual behaviour, drunkenness, and celebrations where authorities were either levelled or reversed even if temporarily? Recalling that the Puritans when they arrived here were socialists, why is it that difficult to believe they would ban such things when there is work to do for their fellow man (i.e. those in power)? With as thorough an examination of history as we can do, I find it much more difficult to believe they did NOT ban it than to believe they did. My original intent in bringing up the banning of it in early America was to illustrate the naivete of believing it could not happen. It has happened. And it was the "religious right" of the day what did it. Cheers, Bill Footnotes: 1. I am particularly fond of Robin Williams' observation: "How stuck up do you have to be for the English to say "Get the **** out" ?!" :^D 2. The Battle for Christmas (Alfred A. Knopf, 1996) 3. Early President of Yale University 4. obligatory Mass attendance -- The slave concubines permitted my father under the Bene Gesserit-Guild agreement could not, of course, bear a Royal Successor, but the intrigues were constant and oppressive in their similarity. We became adept, my mother and sisters and I, at avoiding subtle instruments of death. -- From "In My Father's House" by the Princess Irulan _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
