Btw, that post was not supposed to argue that Protestants should shut up and let Christmas fall into ruin like the atheist guy suggests. It was only that I was rather amused that he should suggest all those delightful things at the end (like bringing back Michaelmas and the Christmas season in its proper kairos) as a rhetorical threat, expecting "everyone" to shrink back in horror and be caught in a logical bind. Nor to suggest that the post was entirely accurate. The author seems to be enough of an "outsider" that he does not perceive the difference between different sorts of Protestants, who are not all responsible for each other's cultural machinations.
Originally, Puritans (not secular humanist atheists) were the ones to expunge Christmas from the calendar. In late 17th-century Massachussetts, it was not only rowdy celebrations on Dec. 25 that were banned, but any observance of Christmas "or any such days" as Slate reports.
Modern evangelical Protestantism, the kind the author of the atheism.about article complains about are a different show entirely. With not all that much tradition to fall back on outside the Bible itself, they often try to avoid elaborate abstract theological speculation in favor of figuring out "what's real and what works" and doing it. As a result, they arrive at many strikingly Catholic teachings and practices (though they generally call them by different names). Just ask Mark Shea how that works. And pray for them.
I was rather curious about that post. I don't really know what those masses are exactly for one. For two, I was curious if I could say to my new school, I see you've put up a tree shortly after thanksgiving. I new you weren't really faithful Catholics ever since you handed me a rainbow sticker after mass, and now I have proof. Or some such.
Posted by: Neil | December 03, 2006 at 08:54 AM