The Religious Right's War on Christmas Began Centuries Ago

As journalist Frederick Clarkson observes, proclamations from Bill O'Reilly, claiming the existence of a leftist assault on Christmas, are "part of a transcendent politics of the Religious Right, and a variant of that old time McCarthism -- baiting everyone with whom they disagree as advocating a 'godless' agenda." Indeed, Billy James Hargis' Christian Crusade was making the same chargesm of a left-wing 'war on Christmas', back in 1960 and much earlier in the year -- in July in fact.

But how did the "War on Christmas", as a concept, originate ? As it happens, once upon a time there was a real "War on Christmas" and it was initiated by the theocratic Christian right of its day, Swiss Calvinists and Scottish Presbyterians. Here's a short overview:

The "war on Christmas" traces back, historically, to Calvinist bans on the celebration of Christmas which began in Geneva and then migrated, with the spread of Calvinist theological views, to Scotland, where Christmas was banned in 1583, a ban that remained in force for almost four hundred years and was only lifted in the 1950's. As Amy McNeese writes, in an article, first published in the Church of Scotland magazine Life & Work,that may be one of the best treatments of the War on Christmas.

"For almost 400 years, Christmas was banned in Scotland. At the height of the Reformation, in 1583, when anything smacking of Catholicism and idolatrous excess was thrown out with contempt, Christmas and all its trappings was wiped off the official calendar...

...Reinforced by the hard arm of the law, this was a ban that had bite...

This was an age when religious belief could mean the difference between life and a very nasty death....

Scottish Presbyterians, when called on for support by the Puritans of the English Parliament in 1644, did so on the understanding that their allies would in exchange impose the ban on Christmas. For over a decade traditional English Christmas festivities were prohibited

From Scotland, the ban on Christmas spread south as Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army brought the Cromwellian revolution to England. Cromwell's Puritans banned Christmas in England for about a decade but the measure was unpopular. Feelings among pro and anti Christmas advocates ran strong and, after a second enforcement act against Christmas was passed by the English Parliament in 1647 [writes McNeese],

Again the people rebelled, this time so forcefully that armed officers had to be sent to remove evergreens decorating St Margaret's Church, near the English Parliament itself. Rioting broke out in London, Kent, Oxford, Canterbury and Ipswich, in which several people were killed. A petition with more than 10,000 signatures demanded either the restoration of Christmas or else the king back on the throne...

Even after the bans were revoked in England in 1660, Puritans and other Non-Conformists "ranted against Anti-Christ's-masse and those Masse-mongers and Papists who observe it", and were commonly known to "inveigh against New Year gifts and evergreens, or to attack the Pope by refusing to eat plum-broth; or to condemn those who ate mince-pies as Papists and idolaters"....

These attitudes were carried to the New World by English Puritans, Quakers, Baptists and Scottish Presbyterians. In America, reprisals were as harsh here as back in Scotland. In Massachusetts a five-shilling penalty was imposed on anyone found feasting or shirking work on Christmas Day...

A hundred years later the Quakers were still ranting against the Christmas pie as "an invention of the scarlet whore of Babylon, an hodge podge of superstition, Popery, the Devil and all his works".

From England the War on Christmas then crossed the Atlantic to the New World migrating with the Puritans who were fleeing the persecution of their political and theological tendency that followed the overthrow of Cromwellian government. Under Puritan rule in the Bay State Colony, Christmas was at one point legally banned for two decades.

Christmas fared worse in Scotland though and was only brought back after four centuries, in part due to the culinary experiences of Scottish soldiers during World War Two. As McNeese describes,

Abroad and in the company of English soldiers, many Scots experienced their first proper Christmas dinner. Once tasted, it was never forgotten. On their return home, these servicemen began to celebrate the festival with some style, and gradually their ideas took root.

Early in the 20th Century in America, the notion of a "war on Christmas", which had long been on the wane, got a boost, as Talk To Action contributor Chip Berlet demonstrates, in 1921 with Henry Ford's notorious and highly influential anti-Jewish tract "The International Jew".

By the America of the early 1960's, American Christian right groups such as Billy James Hargis' Christian Crusade, which was at least heavily Christian nationalist if not overtly theocratic, had appropriated the notion of a "war ion Christmas" as a means of red-baiting the American left ( see section, below ). But the true, historical War on Christmas was a creation of the Protestant, theocratic right.

According To Billy James Hargis' 1960 "Crusader" article [below], published during dark days leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, during which communism was held to be stealthily advancing via liberal Protestant churches and the machinations of Hallmark Greeting Cards and UNICEF, Christmas was also then under siege from the left. But in 1960, the religious right's war on the alleged war on Christmas got started much earlier in the season than is now customary.

In 1960, the war on the war on Christmas started in July.

Below: December 9, 1960 article from "The Crusader"

Comments

[girlwild]

Leave it to O'Reilly to not do his homework.

The US of A is not a christian nation.

[Palspal2]

Actually, the US IS a Christian nation. It is not a Christian STATE, but it is a Christian (in the main) nation. Nation refers to people. Probably about 90% of Americans consider themselves Christian either religiously or culturally. They either practice Christianity or are familiar with its principal tenets and customs to a degree they do not exhibit toward any other religion. They observe Christmas, understand Easter, get married in Christian churches and are buried in Christian ceremony. That many Americans do not attend church regularly, or in fact, may not be in the least observent on a formal basis does not disqualify them or the nation from being considered a Christian nation. Christianity is culturally ingrained.

So let's be clear - and I write this as an atheist. No one says 'Happy Holidays' at New Year. We say 'Happy New Year.' We say happy 'Valentine's Day', even 'Happy Easter 'and 'Happy Thanksgiving." So it's 'Merry Christmas' - hot Happy Holidays. Why should Christmas be the one day we don't call by its name? Even Jews expect "Happy Chanukkah" - not "Happy Holiday" on that occasion. So what's up with the concerted effort at re-christening Christmas as 'Happy Holidays'?

[CalvinistHobbesian]

I say "Happy New Year" and "Happy Thanksgiving" because those are secular holidays. Independence Day, too, is secular, so I greet other Americans with "Happy Fourth" and the like (I do not foist it on Canadians, or any other foreigners if I can help it.) I'm not sure about Valentine's Day, but that one is just between me and my honey anyway. I never say "Happy Easter", first because I'm not a Christian, and second because I usually can't figure out when it is anyway. Same with Hanukkah. Beyond those, there's an endless list of holidays I neither celebrate nor am I quite sure of when they are and who does or doesn't adhere to them, so I like that "Happy Holidays" covers them all and offends no one. Yes, this is mostly in the winter, but most of these holidays seem to take place then. (BTW, I do celebrate Xmas (see Futurama S02E08) but usually refrain from wishing that one on others unless I figure they're in on the joke.)

[indy100]

Actually I would say that although 90% of Americans are familiar with some Christian tenants it does not mean they are "Christian". And, what is a Christian anyway? I was a Mormon, and many people do not consider Mormons as "Christians". They are. I am familiar with Mormon beliefs and traditions, and many general "Christian", even some Jewish traditions; however I don't follow or agree with any of their beliefs. I consider myself more Buddhist in philosophy and belief.

The true irony is that most celebrated holidays have their roots in pagan tradition, as do most religious traditions. Mainstream "Christians" constantly attempt to distrance themselves from this fact, which I find incredibly amusing.

[LunaNik]

According to several reputable pollsters, only around 40% of Americans claim they attend church on a regular basis.

National Opinion Research Center: 38%
Institute for Social Research’s World Values: 44%
Barna: 41%
National Election Studies: 40%
Gallup: 41%

Since regular church attendance is a requirement of most religions, this means that only around 40% of Americans are actually Christian.

[HyperInfluential]

It's not that corporate owners are having their employees avoid the word "Christmas" because they hate the little baby Jesus, it's that there are multiple holidays going on at the same time, and you cannot tell just by looking at a customer which holiday, if any, they might be celebrating.

Even if your wildly inaccurate, completely made up non-statistic were true, and 90% of Americans were Christian, that would still leave 10% of your shoppers who are going to get a negative feeling when an employee greets them with a culturally-specific greeting. It's uncomfortable for everyone -- the greeter wants to cheer up the shoppers, but now the shopper feels like, "Oh, this place is not for me. My kind probably aren't as welcome here."

Then these customers feel bad, not enough to make a big fuss or walk out of the store, but maybe they buy one less indulgent little impulse purchase, are less open to the dazzling samples and special promotions available. Multiplied over 10% of your retail income, this cultural insensitivity could really impact the bottom line, which is why stores switched to the more inclusive greeting.

[tiradintim]

Exactly the way I feel. Bullseye

[marleysghost]

I was raised Catholic and the closest we ever got to a complaint was that commercialism was taking the "Christ" out of Christmas. (Xmas) Other than that, it was (and can be) a wonderful celebration. By the way, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox are Christians. Clear on that?

As has been pointed, out it is the Protestants themselves as Calvinists who practice the most austere form of Christianity. No Christmas or other feast days. So when Bill O and his ilk complain about a war on Christmas, it comes from within the so-called Christian community where Jesus reigns supreme (somehow forgetting the Father in all this). So if "Real Men Love Jesus" and "Jesus Saves" are mantras for the Christian Fundamentalists, they should be celebrating the birth of Jesus all the harder.

In other words, there is no war on Christmas, or perhaps only in the hearts of those who scream the loudest about how secular we have all become. That should not affect any one individual's ability to celebrate Christmas in his or her heart as they see fit.

[EricArthurBlair]

The Catholics (and many others) seem to have forgotten that the "X" in Xmas comes, not from an intent to take Christ out of Christmas, but from "Χριστος", which is "Christ" in Greek.

[samguy]

Great post because I learned something! Eric, you so rock!

[rudiy]

O'Reilly is like many neo cons. They use the word "always" to support their views when objecting to changes or things they do not like. The new testament was written in Latin therefore Church services were always in Latin, Priests were always celibate, Christmas was always a major holiday, with only pagans were against the celebration. The founders of the US always meant for the US to be a Christian nation.

[Scipio]

Isn't it ironic that the War on Christmas began as a Christian movement? Look, when you've got Christers attacking a Christian institution (yeah, OK, the holiday was arbitrarily swiped from paganism's Mithrasmas, the celebration of *sol invictus,* or the Invincible Sun), you've got a recipe for insanity. All of these people are dangerous lunatics. They're loony by definition, since faith itself bespeaks of an unstable mind. Belief in a god should be relegated to the great mass delusions of history.

[chriss0114]

The Christians continue their assault on the pagan holiday Winter Solstice celebration, trying to substitute the birth of Christ in it's place!

So goes the War on Winter Solstice!

[dudelette]

Yes, the Solstice is the reason for the season!

We want our trees, log, feast, gift-giving and toasting back, now!

[Kiba]

We'll steal it back from these dang Christians!

[cynicalgirl]

If we win the war against Winter Solstice, does that mean we won't have any more winters?

[Dorksforobama]

Move to Phoenix...

[LunaNik]

I so get a kick out of telling Christians that by putting a lighted tree in their homes at midwinter means they're practicing sympathetic magick.

[daffey]

I'm sure that stumps them.

[Dorksforobama]

The Celts celebrated the holiday as the Winter Solstice. It included the colors red, white and black representing the Triple Godess(think Santa's oufit), the Yule log (a continuance of the circle and cycle of life), the Mistletoe (believed to have magical properties by the Celts due to it's parasitic nature), and a celebration of the light returning (Winter Solstice).

When the Irish emigrated, they brought their traditions with them, and as with Halloween, their traditions became American traditions (in convoluted form, of course...)

In my opininion, whatever the tradition you celebrate, the season is all about togetherness, giving, and peace on earth, if only for a day (or eight days, or three days, or 21 days or 12 days...).

[KSMullins]

And herein you touch on the root of so much that harms America today...Calvinism...

[ianrthorpe]

Christmas, like all other Christian festivals is a pagan festival that was re-engineered arounf the pagan festival celebrating the sun passing its nadir.

All around the world there are local traditions that have little to do with the New Testament story of the nativity. One of my favorites is the Caganer (literally "crapper" tradition observed in the Caatalan region of Spain. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has just been honoured by having his likeness used on this year's caganer dolls. Read about the tradition through the link below:
http://greenteeth.blog.co.uk/2008/11/20/prime-minister-to-have-a-crap-christmas-as-a-caganer-5069936

[anniegirl9]

Maybe I am part of the problem in Bill O's opinion, but I am an Agnostic who celebrates Christmas. Why? Because there is a child like wonderment to the holidays. Mostly, we do the secular stuff. Santa Claus really dosn't have much to do with Christ. But I do still love to sing the carols, even the religious ones. I don't know why, but there is something comforting about the old carols. It's not the lyrics really, because I don't connect with their meaning. Again, it goes back to the warn fuzzies you got as a child.

To me, Christmas is a time to think about others and to gather close with your family. None of that really has to be about God. I will still continue to share Christmas with my son in my own way.

[berrycooda]

God is love.....maybe (without realizing it) or giving glory to God for implanting that in
your heart, that is why you share CHRISTmas and enjoy it with you son.
Children are a gift from God.
Maybe you don't know why you enjoy the religious carols etc., but someday you will.

God works in strange ways and all of it, love and sharing with family and friends is about
the love that God wants us to have for each other.

[HyperInfluential]

Please ignore any condescending people who claim that you secretly want to be religious, that the life you've chosen for yourself is simply not good enough, because it's not what they chose. Wanting tinsel and presents is not evidence of a secret desire to become an evangelical.

Christmas is a United States Federal Holiday that was inspired by the Christian holiday of the same name celebrated the same day. Any American can feel free to enjoy our federal holiday any way we like! Some of us like to just sit around not working, or working and collecting overtime. Some of us like to make a big party, decorating the house and cooking a feast, borrowing whatever we want from the smorgasbord of different Christian denominations, the modern or ancient nature and spirit religions, whoever! America is supposed to be a melting pot, so this is perfectly appropriate, and often results in some fantastic decorations and amazing parties!

[Nyland8]

FROM ...
Christma-Hanu-Rama-Ka-Dona-Kwanzaa
words and music by Roy Zimmerman
.

... But even as all things are dying, one event can steer
The moribund toward more abundant cheer
.

No matter what your race or religion (or lack thereof)
You're sure to have a festive night (or eight or twelve)
A seasonal way for neighbors to say, "How could we have been so wrong?"
Let's sing a Christma-Hanu-Rama-Ka-Dona-Kwanzaa song

So don a party hat
And kill the calf that's fat
And throw a Roman Saturnalia

And when winter turns to spring
And nature does her thing
You'll be wearing frilly frocks,
Resetting all your clocks
For Floralia-Holi-Easter-Passo-Vernal-Equinox

What a pan-humanic extravaganza
What an ethni-cultu-religio jubilee
They're all joining hands in disparate lands to form a harmonious throng
And sing a Christma-Hanu-Rama-Ka-Dona-Kwanzaa song

So lay aside your crushing load of earthly misery
To sing a Christma-Hanu-Rama-Ka-Dona-Kwanzaa song with me

8

[pbley68]

Bill O'Reilly is lying again with his usual smokescreen bullsh*t, because the true meaning of Christmas has been hijacked by crass commercialization, instigated by the sort of capitalism that he and the religious right always espouse for.

[mataliandy]

O'Reilly has one and only one purpose in his little crusade: to dismiss the validity of all other religions. By pushing his "we must say Merry Christmas" orthodoxy, he is also saying, "we must not acknowledge or respect the validity of any other religions by acknowledging or respecting their holidays."

It's blatant discrimination in disguise as an anti-discriminatory screed.

[adrienrain]

Not only did the Romans celebrate Saturnalia at the turn of the year, but Mithraists celebrated Mithra's birthday December 25. These holidays - including Easter (name of a Goddess of fertility and spring) and Halloween were taken over by the church - probably because people hated to give them up. Now, some fanatic religionists refuse to celebrate them (because of Pagan origins) and some want to ram them down our throats as exclusively Christian holidays.

I happily celebrate Christmas and the rest as the joyous seasonal holidays that they are, and as opportunities to bring people together.

[HelenKrause]

Again, tell me why we honor the Pilgrims?

[observer007]

Or pray for the end of the world?

Or vote for people like Bush?

Or pay tithes to the government?

[That Guy]

Maybe you do. I don't.

[SonofLiberty1]

Once more about Commercialization of Christmas/Keeping Christ in Christmas:

The old priests and religious right just don't get it at all...
As I said, the gift giving is remembrance of the gift of Christ given to us by God himself and the very first human gifts given by the Magi, and Santa Claus as remembrance of St. Nicholas...

So today, we still have Santa and gift buying and giving. Christmas trees sold as well as ornaments for the tree and all manner of other decorations....

So, this is the "Sin of Commercialization"?

Only for those who must like to say "Bah Humbug" and whose last names may not be spelled
Scrooge but certainly sound like it!

Fact is that, for much of the last 50 years, retailers have depended on the buying and selling of gifts as a large portion of their livelyhood.

That's why the Friday after Thanksgiving, just about coinciding with the first week of Advent, has always been known as "Black Friday" because that is the date that they can actually be in the black and make a profit for the first time in the year. Only today, with the economy being so bad, that's why we see this traditional 3 or 4 weeks before Christmas extended into November and even October.

Not to forget that 2/3 of our economy in America is due to consumer spending, everyone really relies on the extra vigor that it gives the economy next year.

[daffey]

An interesting article, and a fun reminder that the battles we fight have been fought before, and no doubt will be again. It’s the way humans are. But the label ‘theocratic right’ is a bit less than accurate. In their day, they would have seen themselves as a new break from an old tradition, returning to the roots of the faith. It usually doesn’t work to apply modern divisional labels to old, historic movements. Liberalism is, in many ways, a belief founded on the idea that much of what built modern Western civilization is flawed, and must be thrown down in light of new, often scientific, theories and beliefs. The ‘right’, is a generic term for anyone who doesn’t follow this idea entirely, often preferring to try to fit traditional pillars of our civilization into the new discoveries and sensitivities of the age. The Calvinists and Puritans would not have seen themselves as trying to preserve the most recent building blocks of their society, but rather throwing away the most direct building blocks of their world by returning to the purer teachings of the original faith. In many ways, they were pretty darn liberal, if you listen to liberalism turning to other cultures and ancient practices in its justification for shaving away those traditions recently (within the last few hundred years) established in our culture.

[rixter1965]

I'm wary, too, of backreading labels from one period onto another, but see things differently. Left and Right are hard to apply to the 1600s or earlier since they derive from the era of the French Revolution, and liberals/liberalism, too, without meaning before the eighteenth century. I don't think, by the way, that is what is going on in the original posting.

A cautious parallel between present and past can be made in that the groups mentioned all advocated a form of religious liberty (or toleration) in societies where the established church, its structure, and theology were intertwined with the government -- and they saw their political rights and ability to worship as they chose curtailed. In time, and given the opportunity, however, most all the groups mentioned attempted to impose religious uniformity on others. They were "radical" when oppressed, but "authoritarian" when they could be -- the Puritans of Massachusetts as one example. Today's "religious right" in the United States seems to reject the political system with its no-establishment clause/secular foundations and tendencies, yet also seems to want to make its precepts the basis for an alternative.

[daffey]

Some good insights there rixter. I think it is inevitable that those who scream liberty and tolerance when oppressed, will eventually seek to impose their beliefs and views on others. There's an old Latin proverb: how a minority, becoming a majority, seizing authority, hates a minority. And so it was. Puritans fleeing persecution for freedom of worship could turn around and beat the stuffing out of someone not conforming to their community's ways. But then, that's how it is. For example, if you stood up 60 years ago and said there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, you'd be toast. Today, if you stand up and say you think there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality, there’s an increasing likelihood that you'll be toast. And at the hands of those who 60 years ago were screaming for liberty and tolerance. It's not a religion thing I think, it's a human thing.