"Mike T." > writes:

> >> You would be wrong, then. If you research the history of customs related
> >> to
> >> the holiday called "Christmas", you will note that the ONLY religious
> >> connection is the nativity scene.
> >
> > Since you imply you have researched this such history, how about a
> > couple of scholarly references to start the rest off? Most of what I
> > can get on the web is citation-free blithering from the pro- or
> > anti-Jesus lobbies.
>
> I'm not going to do your homework for you.

This is not "[my] homework", you supercilious twerp. Have you ever
read a scholarly book? They give references. There are good reasons
for this.

> But if you do the research carefully, you will find your own
> indisputable sources to show that just about all customs and symbols
> related to the holiday called "Christmas" pre-date the birth of
> Christ by many years. The one glaring exception is the nativity
> scene. But Santa Claus,

Santa Claus - including the name - is pre-Christian? You seem unable
to even state your claims adequately.

> gift-giving, "Christmas trees", mistletoe, carolling, traditional
> foods and feasts, in short EVERYTHING that makes up "Christmas" was
> a part of the holiday celebrated in late December LONG before Christ
> is said to have been born.

I've seen random nutjobs on the net claim all sorts of stuff without
any attempt to give reputable sources; this is the glorious company to
which you have elected yourself.

Des