Surely the fact that that you can and do is the essence of this festival, whatever you want to call it.

If you’re not a christian, you may well get the day off on Good Friday, and you may well enjoy easter eggs, but unless you believe in the religion, how can you be said to be “celebrating” easter? Clearly one cannot celebrate Christ rising from the dead, if you don’t believe it even happened? Similarly, if you don’t believe that Jesus was the son of god, or even a prophet, then how exactly can you say that you’re “celebrating christmas”? What exactly are you celebrating?

That very little of the culture is religious these days anyway does not speak to the question of whether “Christmas” in the religious sense is a religious festival, only whether what people do at Christmas-time is or isn’t a religious thing, which for most people I suspect it mostly isn’t. Each to their own.

It’s true that many secular things (including laws) may well be underpinned by things consistent with, or evolved from christianity. But most of them don’t pretend to be religious. Calling a solely secular festival (which it is for many people) by the name of a religious festival (and a rather central one at that, for the religion in question) just seems strange and wrong to me.

“Otherwise you are putting forward the absurd proposition that on christmas day you must either go to church or go to work ?”

No. At Christmas, if you claim to be celebrating it, you should be an adherent of the religion in question, even if you are a lapsed one. You may or may not go to church, depending on your preference.

On the other hand, if you are not a Christian, you may do what you jolly well like at Christmas-time, celebrate consumption and family and so forth, or not, as you see fit, but it’s not strictly accurate to say that you are “celebrating Christmas”.

Matt, is that comment directed at me, or Clarice? I’m pretty sure that you and I agree: We should not have to conform to what religious leaders tell us is the ‘true meaning’ of a festival.

t.
I imagine many people living in say Turkey, who do not consider themselves practicing muslims, still take part in religious festivals. Otherwise you are putting forward the absurd proposition that on christmas day you must either go to church or go to work ? We don’t seek to justify every aspect of our culture on the grounds of religious orthodoxy, so why christmas ?

Well, that is good. I am inclined to agree with you, especially your point about the public/private distinction. It doesn’t really matter to me, since I shall be retaining “Christmas” for myself. Each to their own, and all that.

I want to lay aside for a moment the massive carbon foot-print that the feasting aspect of “Christmas” has come to entail, and the part that “Christmas” has come to play in the economy, which I would say is a far greater motivater than Jesus ever was. But I can’t. If excessive consumption (“feasting”) is such an integral part of Christmas for you, then is that not rather elitist and disturbing? And if your rituals entail destroying the planet at a specially accelerated rate, even as hurricanes and freak weather abound, are such rituals ethically defensible?

I think there are two points to be made here:
1. It isn’t fair to co-opt other people’s religious festivals. If you don’t believe in Christ, then why do you need to call it Christmas?
2. What are the ethical parameters of “Winterval”? Isn’t it possible to have ritual and connection and to acknowledge the seasons and the passage of time without alienating others and harming the environment in quite such a focussed way?