– @LOLGOP, aka comedian Pete Nicely

Culture warriors who are invested in the idea that there is a secular, anti-American “War on Christmas” should avoid watching the History Channel’s documentary, “Christmas Unwrapped: The History of Christmas.” Exposure to the historical facts about the holiday could well make their heads explode.

And we wouldn’t want that. Not at Christmas.

As is widely known, it is unlikely Jesus was born in December, a time when it was usually too cold in the Holy Land for shepherds to be watching their sheep in the fields by night. In fact, the holiday wasn’t dedicated to Jesus’ birthday until centuries later — and only after early Christians had co-opted popular pagan mid-winter festivals from Roman and northern European traditions. Christmas primarily took the place of the Romans’ Saturnalia, which was a celebration of debauchery.

According to the History Channel’s overview of the documentary:

By holding Christmas at the same time as traditional winter solstice festivals, church leaders increased the chances that Christmas would be popularly embraced, but gave up the ability to dictate how it was celebrated. By the Middle Ages, Christianity had, for the most part, replaced pagan religion. On Christmas, believers attended church, then celebrated raucously in a drunken, carnival-like atmosphere similar to today’s Mardi Gras. Each year, a beggar or student would be crowned the “lord of misrule” and eager celebrants played the part of his subjects. The poor would go to the houses of the rich and demand their best food and drink. If owners failed to comply, their visitors would most likely terrorize them with mischief. Christmas became the time of year when the upper classes could repay their real or imagined “debt” to society by entertaining less fortunate citizens…

In the early 17th century, a wave of religious reform changed the way Christmas was celebrated in Europe. When Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan forces took over England in 1645, they vowed to rid England of decadence and, as part of their effort, cancelled Christmas.

History-challenged readers should note that Cromwell and the Puritans were Christian radicals who opposed the monarchy (and so would have been liberals in that era) but who believed in theocracy, the melding of church and state. Ironically, these Christmas-haters are direct ideological ancestors of the militantly pro-Christmas right-wing Christian extremists of today.

From the documentary’s narration: “The tension between piety and revelry at Christmas would reach it’s logical and extreme conclusion in Puritan England, when the holiday would be considered so un-Christian, it was done away with altogether.”

Later, under Cromwell, laws were passed forbidding businesses to close and churches to open on Christmas Day.

By popular demand, Charles II was restored to the throne and, with him, came the return of the popular holiday.

The pilgrims, English separatists that came to America in 1620, were even more orthodox in their Puritan beliefs than Cromwell. As a result, Christmas was not a holiday in early America. From 1659 to 1681, the celebration of Christmas was actually outlawed in Boston.

Anyone exhibiting the Christmas spirit was fined five shillings. By contrast, in the Jamestown settlement, Captain John Smith reported that Christmas was enjoyed by all and passed without incident…

Here is the part that will cause the pro-Christmas warriors’ heads to explode:

NARRATOR: “After Independence, all things British fell out of favor in America — Christmas included. In fact, on Dec. 25, 1789, the United States Congress sat in session and continued to stay open on Christmas Day for most of the next 67 years.” (Emphasis added.)

Christmas wasn’t declared a federal holiday until June 26, 1870.

It wasn’t until the 19th century that Americans began to embrace Christmas. Americans re-invented Christmas, and changed it from a raucous carnival holiday into a family-centered day of peace and nostalgia. But what about the 1800s peaked [sic] American interest in the holiday?

The early 19th century was a period of class conflict and turmoil. During this time, unemployment was high and gang rioting by the disenchanted classes often occurred during the Christmas season. In 1828, the New York city council instituted the city’s first police force in response to a Christmas riot. This catalyzed certain members of the upper classes to begin to change the way Christmas was celebrated in America.

The right wing’s promotion of the War on Christmas over the past decade and a half or so — it started after the launching of the GOP’s Fox channel in 1996 — is a prime example of how they have learned to use both their own Fox propaganda outlet and the “liberal media” to commandeer political discourse with positions that are so anti-factual as to be laughable and really should be unworthy of serious consideration.

The historical fact is that the Christmas traditions we know now are largely re-purposed pagan practices mixed with commercialized Victorian-era sentimentality and a dash or two of religious imagery.

The right wing’s imaginary secular war on Christmas today pales in comparison with the real anti-Christmas practices of the Pilgrim settlers and policies of the Founding Fathers and the American political establishment in the first six decades after Independence.

War on Christmas? Bah! Humbug!

Jesus wept.

The 2010 War on the War on Christmas is looking to be a shattering success for the American Family Association. On the heels of its addition to the list of hate groups published annually by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Christianist group is spreading its message of holiday — whoops– Christmas joy through an intimidation campaign against prominent retailers.

Here are the rules, according to the AFA.

Criteria – AFA reviewed up to four areas to determine if a company was “Christmas-friendly” in their advertising: print media (newspaper inserts), broadcast media (radio/television), website and/or personal visits to the store. If a company’s ad has references to items associated with Christmas (trees, wreaths, lights, etc.), it was considered as an attempt to reach “Christmas” shoppers. If a company has items associated with Christmas, but did not use the word “Christmas,” then the company is considered as censoring “Christmas.”

Color Code:

GREEN: Company uses the term “Christmas” on a regular basis, we consider that company Christmas-friendly.
YELLOW: Company refers to Christmas infrequently, or in a single advertising medium, but not in others.
RED: Company may use “Christmas” sparingly in a single or unique product description, but as a company, does not recognize it.

The unfortunately named Dick’s Sporting Goods recently caved to AFA pressure, leading to awkwardly structured pitches. Where before online shoppers could find a selection of “The season’s top scoring gifts,” we wonder if they will now wade through apostrophically-challenged “Christmas’s top gifts?”

We have always found it ironic that the same folks who insist that everyone use the word “Christmas,” in every situation, including on second reference, are the ones who forced such abominations as “Happy Harvest” and “Trunk or Treat” upon us.

But what we find most paradoxical is the AFA’s targeting of Victoria’s Secret. The lingerie retailer predictably made the AFA’s “Naughty” list (we’re not kidding) but not for its depiction of barely dressed, surgically enhanced models such as this:

Nor for its soft-porn fantasy story lines like these:

No, Victoria’s Secret, along with Barnes & Noble, CVS Pharmacy, Office Depot, Radio Shack, Staples, and SUPERVALU should be shunned, according to the AFA, for not using the word “Christmas” often enough as a means to sell their products. To recap, the AFA has no problem with naked (eh-hem) consumerism, no problem with using Christ’s birthday to sell G-strings and MP3 players, and no problem with manipulating their tea bagger base to conflate Jesus with retailing.

And my only comeback is to urge you to support the retailers who resist the AFA by buying more crap from them.

Merry freaking Christmas everyone.

Score one for the opposition in the War on Christmas. This phone call to C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” was the first thing I heard after I turned on the teevee this morning. The Senate had just passed its version health-care reform when Bunny, a right-wing drama queen from Parson, Kansas, phoned in:

BUNNY: Good morning. Yes, I am… very much. I’m so disappointed. I have taken my Christmas tree down. I’ve taken my Christmas wreath off my house. I’ve taken all the lights down. This is supposed to be a nation under God, and it isn’t. They have absolutely ruined Christmas for all the senators and representatives that are supposed to be under God. This is God’s holiday for the birth of his son…

C-SPAN’s Peter Slen: So you took down your Christmas tree because of the Senate health-care bill?

BUNNY: I certainly did, and I would like to see every light in the nation go out — especially in the White House. This is just ridiculous.

C-SPAN: Why are you so opposed to it, Bunny?

BUNNY: Because it is so divisive between my son — who is younger — and myself. And in many families it’s that way. Either it’s genocide on the seniors with this hospice — that’s never supposed to be supported by federal or state money. They are not-for-profit organization [sic] that Germany has even kicked out.

I checked Snopes, the email rumor busting web site, and sure enough, they’ve researched this one. Not only will the Obamas refer to their decorations as being of Christmas in nature, they are even reversing previous Bush-era policies that barred the use of religious symbols on the Capitol Christmas Tree, which is set up on the West Lawn of the Capitol on the Mall.

The Capitol Christmas Trees are cut each year from a national forest, and this year the tree is being provided, ironically enough, by Arizona, Sen. John McCain’s home state. School children, Brownie troops, and retirement community residents in the Grand Canyon State have been busy making ornaments for the tree that reflect Arizona-ness, and according to the photo gallery on the tree’s web site, CapitolChristmasTree2009, we’re going to see a lot of decorated gourds, metal stars, Mr. Sun Faces and cacti. The only Forest Service imposed requirements (and the Forest Service and Architect of the U.S. Capitol are in charge here) were that ornaments had to be weather-proof, not made of glass or plastic, and meet size requirements.

I’m sure this won’t be the end of it. Every year, the “It’s O.K. to say Merry Christmas to me” folks claim to be the victims of a conspiracy of politically correct language that prohibits good Christians from using the word “Christmas.” To level the score, they go ballistic when anyone uses the word, “holiday” instead. The result is a draw. It becomes impossible to know whether it’s more politically incorrect to say “holiday” or “Christmas,” so people sit at keyboards consumed in doubt, not knowing how to proceed.

This year, what with the worked-up birthers, tea baggers, anti-taxers, death panel believers, Klan fans, gun nuts, and anti-government anarchists out there, we can expect even more idiocy.

At Pensito Review, we know exactly what to do. It’s not O.K. to say merry Christmas to us, unless you really mean it and aren’t making an angry political statement.