Posted by Ian E-N on October 29, 2006 at 14:09:27 from 86.130.88.169 user IanEN.
In Reply to: Re: PC again (Was Taking another tack (was Contemporary Appeal) posted by PeterH on October 29, 2006 at 13:32:18:
Ian - as it happens, I share your disbelief in religion.
I was not aware that I have, or had expressed, a disbelief in religion.
And Christmas, or whatever one chooses to call it, doesn't mean much to me personally. However, surely one can make this personal choice without publicly belittling the beliefs of others 'muddled mish-mash' 'mythic flummery'
"Christmas" is a muddled mish mash of various vaguely symbolic mythic flummery - eg "Christmas" trees, Yule logs, Father "Christmas", Santa Claus, Rudolph, Holly and Ivy, baby's born to virgins, pixies and toy making elves etc etc etc patched onto a pre-existing mid winter festival. It was imported into this country as part of a franchised cult and has been dressed up since with a wide variety of borrowed gimcrackery. If you don't wish to see people stating views in public - don't come into a public arena stating your views.
Whether you or I like it or not, this is a post-Christian country, and much of our nomenclature reflects that. It is part of our history,
the "Christmas" period following on from the blossoming Halloween period is a commercial trading concept. It is also an actual religious festival of a currently active cult and thus somewhat different to historic quirks such as days named after Nordic Gods. A council representing people from a range of faiths and none has no need to celebrate the specific Mass of a single cult.
and one might note that various 20th century regimes in other countries have tried to blot out history they didn't like by altering place-names
and as I pointed out it was a 'Christian' godly parliament that abolished christmas celebrations in this country - the council in question did no such thing - their actions were to enable and support whatever celebrations people carried out over the winter solstice period.