>> 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. 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, 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.

If Julius I never declared the "5th and 20th day of December" to be the
birthday of the Christ child, Christmas would still exist. It would be a
holiday that you would recognize immediately, as it would be IDENTICAL to
what you know as "Christmas". Only, it wouldn't be called "Christmas". And
you wouldn't see any nativity scenes anywhere. But it is likely that your
family would gather together at the same time of year, have a great feast,
and exchange presents from underneath an elaborately decorated tree. You
might even have mistletoe hanging in the doorway. If you had children, you
would entertain them with stories of Santa Claus. All this sound
iliar? -Dave