The second clause completely undermines the first.
If you think understanding necessitates agreement, we don’t even share a common conceptual language.
If, on the other hand, you just didn’t like my rephrasing of the religion-privileging arguments voiced here as “a One Drop” rule - Welcome, hope you enjoy your first day in Rhetoric 101.
Once again, what you consider secular doesn’t make it so. Christmas trees with lights and angel toppers, which you have argued are secular celebrations of the holiday, are found in just about every single Church in America from Advent on.
That you fail to see that that’s the secular sphere invading the religious space, not vice versa, is why we’re having this argument in the first place. You’re actually giving examples of secularization as though it doesn’t wreck your own argument.
Triflin
Sure, but they are also found in Walmart, home depot and target starting November 1st if not sooner. The secular is stretching the holiday well beyond its religious bounds.
Don’t see what Okinawan snake venom has to do with your failure to make a decent debate response, but whatever…
So what you are asserting is that an explosion of secularism in 16th and 17th Century Germany and/or 15th and 15th Century England (when holly and ivy were placed in rural English churches) is the cause for Churches to have Christmas trees? Sure the story of Martin Luther inventing the tradition of the lighted Christmas tree is probably apocryphal, but the fact that the story was so popular in Germany at the time may indicate the intention of the folks who started doing the tradition.
I have given up on making decent debate responses, because you have made this no longer a decent debate. Enjoy whatever this has become.
Pretty much, yes, since they weren’t originally put up in churches, but guild halls and then homes. Don’t get much more secular than a merchant guild. The money quote : “Only at the start of the 20th century did Christmas trees appear inside churches, this time in a new brightly lit form”
And even later than Germany or Britain for the USA - Do you think the Puritans had Christmas trees?
And no, the holly and the ivy aren’t the same thing (And are pagan holdovers, anyway, along with mistletoe).
Another one on your side of this argument who is first to sling personal pejoratives like “triflin”[sic] when their opponent is merely attacking their arguments, and yet is also first to decry the tone of the debate. So much for Christmas cheer…
You probably also want to add this quote from earlier in your wikipedia article: “Modern Christmas trees have been related to the “tree of paradise” of medieval mystery plays that were given on 24 December, the commemoration and name day of Adam and Eve in various countries. In such plays, a tree decorated with apples (to represent the forbidden fruit) and wafers (to represent the Eucharist and redemption) was used as a setting for the play. Like the Christmas crib, the Paradise tree was later placed in homes. The apples were replaced by round objects such as shiny red balls.[13][14][19][20][21][22]”
To add…
" The Christmas tree was first recorded to be used by German Lutherans in the 16th century, with records indicating that a Christmas tree was placed in the Cathedral of Strasbourg in 1539, under the leadership of the Protestant Reformer, Martin Bucer.[142][143] In the United States, these “German Lutherans brought the decorated Christmas tree with them; the Moravians put lighted candles on those trees.”[6][144] When decorating the Christmas tree, many individuals place a star at the top of the tree symbolizing the Star of Bethlehem, a fact recorded by The School Journal in 1897.[7][145] Professor David Albert Jones of the University of Oxford writes that in the 19th century, it became popular for people to also use an angel to top the Christmas tree in order to symbolize the angels mentioned in the accounts of the Nativity of Jesus.[8]"
Are pagans not religious anymore?
Oh, look, a reference to a completely different tree tradition (that evolved to be not in a church - there’s that secularization again) is somehow a refutation of what I said about German trees.
I’ll grant you that the singular Cathedral tree cite does contradict the other quote. But all the rest of that paragraph I read as talking about home trees, not church ones.
And do I detect that you’re intending what 19th C. people intended with their tree trinkets to somehow magically carry over to the masses today?
Are the people placing the greenery today practicing pagans? Or did the pagan cooties carry over in the ensuing 2000 years, even through the Christianisation?
You mean that a decorated tree serving as a setting for medieval mystery plays, which generally were held outside of Churches, on Christmas Eve had no influence on people setting up trees in their own homes for the Christmas season? Seems a little silly to deny that influence.
Even if talking about house, trees, your wikipedia page cite also states: " After the Protestant Reformation, such trees are seen in the houses of upper-class Protestant families as a counterpart to the Catholic Christmas cribs."
Weren’t you the one saying it was a secular tradition which invaded the religious one?
Let’s take it a different way, let’s say churches across the world stated taking over Labor Day (let’s use May 1, the international Labor Day). And a bunch of people started to believe over time that it was a religious holiday. Would the intent of the folks who started Labor Day, who intended for it to be a secular day of promotion of working people. be irrelevant in that situation?
MrDibble, I would be very interested in hearing your responses to my questions in 331 and 334. I think these point out the problems with your claim that all behavior can be clearly classified as religious or secular.
You’re the one who thought it was clever to introduce the phrase “One Drop” into the conversation, implying that those who prefer not to celebrate Christmas are analogous to racists.
The problem is that you AREN’T attacking the arguments of your opponents. You appear to fail to understand them.
And I never argued that the celebration of Christmas is America is “more religious than secular”. I don’t think anyone has. I have argued that it is significantly religious. And I don’t consider that a “taint”, for what it’s worth, just a feature.
If you choose to ignore the religious celebration of a significant fraction of the US, you are welcome to do so. But it doesn’t make it go away. Nor does your putting up plastic reindeer make anyone’s religious celebration go away.
You show no signs whatsoever of understanding the argument being made against yours; and your repeated claim that that argument is a “one-drop rule” exactly illustrates that you don’t understand it.
Some people think so. I found an article by an Orthodox rabbi which I considered linking to this thread but decided came too close to anti-Christian hate speech. Suffice it to say this guy thought he was scoring major rhetorical points by pointing out the pagan origins of trees and other common Christmas symbols, as though it proved that Christians are really still secretly worshiping Odin or something.
My guess is that a small minority of Christians who were strongly committed to free-market economics would insist on refusing to celebrate the new holiday, a small minority of atheistic socialists would insist on continuing to celebrate the old way, and most people would just go along with the change. Whether the minority positions are “relevant” depends on your point of view; they are certainly relevant to the people who hold them.