The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

The clergy should keep their beaky noses out of our Yuletide celebrations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,717 times Debate No: 6043
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)




What's it got to do with the church, eh? This is our festival, not theirs. On December the 25th Europeans celebrated the winter solstice, as they had done for time immemorial. That was until the 4th Century when a bunch of religious crackpots turned up with their book of Middle Eastern folk tales and hijacked the celebrations for themselves. They reckoned a character from their book called Mr. Christ was born on the 25th December and they renamed Yuletide "Christ's Mass" in his honour. What a cheek! Before they came and saw what a great time we were having in our mid-Winter celebrations, they reckoned that he was born sometime in the Spring.

So what do they expect us to believe happened there then? Did this infant "son of God" actually plop out on December 25th but his mother walked around with the baby dangling between her legs for a few months before she decided to cut the umbilical cord? Come on, your Graces, you can do better than that. Why doesn't the church just admit that the whole malarkey is a big scam designed to rake in bumper profits from cheaply produced nativity plays?

Ladies and Gentlemen, we don't need religion to celebrate December the 25th.

* Santa Claus has nothing to do with Christ's birthday. The name comes from the Dutch rendition of St. Nicholas, the former Bishop of Myra, Turkey. By all accounts, he was a kindly old soul who used to go about distributing gifts to people in need. So, nothing to do with the birth of Christ whatsoever, is it, eh? Reverend? Eh? Is it?

* Christmas stockings are associated with Santa, not Christ, so stand away from the presents Father.

* Christmas trees were introduced by Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's fancyman, who got them in Germany, not the Holy Land, Vicar.

* Poinsettias are Mexican weeds that some urchin gave to someone as a Christmas present and Mexico is a long way from Bethlehem, your Eminence. I know that. I've got an Atlas.

* Did the Three Wise Men arrive at the stable on a sleigh drawn by reindeer? No they didn't, did they Padre?

* Holly, ivy and mistletoe are pagan symbols of fertility and longevity, Monsignor, so don't even think about pulling the wool over our eyes with that one.

* The traditional roast dinner comes from England via America, where turkeys come from. Since they are not native to the Middle East (despite their name) Christ wouldn't have known what a turkey was if one came up and pecked him on the arse. And cranberry sauce is American too, so hands off our Yuletide grub, your Holiness.

In fact, the only thing you will have to forgo by kicking religion out of the festivities is shopping for seasonal gifts at your local branch of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh 'R' Us!

In view of this, I propose that the church should mind its own business and stop interfering with our mid-Winter festival. Thank you.



I thank my opponent for starting a debate on such an important topic, even if he's totally wrong. In fact, I contend the church needs to finish the job they so admirably started. It's time to stop pretended. Did the church hijack December 25th? It did indeed! And the reason should be obvious to everyone, including inebriated Yuletide sinners.

There is no historical record of Jesus' actual birth, nor is December 25th even biblical. Yet given the obvious miracle of his birth, it must be celebrated, and the church was wise to select a date that would conflict with the hedonistic rituals of its day. The church, so to speak, is in the business of saving souls, and Yuletide is a primary competitor. Offering a competing celebration was a stroke of liturgical genius, as was the added bonus of making people feel guilty during the solstice. However, it is clear the church has failed in the area of maintenance, since heresies like Santa abound unchallenged. Therefore, I submit the following theological corrections be made to the holiday tradition:

* Santa Clause must be re-associated with Christ's birth. He should no longer be identified with the giving of gifts to children, since those lil' original sinners need to find Christ on their own. Instead, he should only be depicted as given gifts to Jesus. Also, the moniker should be changed to Saint Cause, allowing the added benefit of associating the jolly elf with the Cosmological Argument for God's Existence.

* Christmas stockings must be deemed a reminder of Jesus' washing of the disciples feet, even though that would happen 30 years after his birth. They should be filled with coal to remind us that we all fall short of the glory of God and that no child is "good" enough to receive the gift of grace. It is given, not earned. In light of this, the notion that Saint Cause has a list of boys and girls that are "good" or "bad" must be eliminated. It confuses would-be converts.

* Christmas trees should be replaced with Christmas crosses, thereby retaining the "tree-ness" of this particular sacrament but still injecting biblical truth. Decorating it is still permissible.

* Poinsettias are a religious disgrace since red is the devil's color and plants are a reminder of the environmental movement and their extreme liberal agenda.

* The wise men should be elevated to sainthood since they were wise enough to recognize the Messiah's birth as obvious divine truth. Though the bible is unclear as to how the wise men traveled, the church should communicate that they were so wise, it would not be surprising if they prophetically arrived on a reindeer pulled sleigh as a testimony to modern skeptics.

* Holly, ivy and mistletoe should be eradicated as well since it is a reminder of sex. As any Southern Baptist will tell you, sex can lead to dancing.

* Christmas dinner should be replaced entirely by communion. In fact, the 12 Days of Christmas should be days of fasting.

The church was noble in its effort to distract lay people from engaging in Yuletide devilry, but it's job is not yet done. I have provided just a few ways the church can stick it's nose even further in the treacherous tradition, and submit that in so doing, the world with be a far better place. Since better is better, and what I offer is so obviously better, the resolution is negated and the voters should vote on my behalf.
Debate Round No. 1


I should like to extend my sincere thanks to my opponent for graciously accepting this debating challenge, even though his recommendations represent no more than the bitter rantings of Christian fundamentalist (with the emphasis on "mentalist").

I'm sorry, but it's just typical, isn't it? The God Squad are always out to stop other people having fun, aren't they? When they showed up in Europe at Yuletide and saw naked virgins dancing around the bonfire before being invited into the bushes by young men anxious to "enlighten" them, one of those ancient priests probably turned to his clerical colleagues and said:

"That's not fair! Look at all those lucky blokes getting their ends away and all we can do is stand and watch. I mean, we have to remain celibate, it says so in our contracts of employment. I tell you what, let's put the kaibosh on the whole caboodle by telling them that engaging in this sort of heretical horseplay will condemn them all to an eternity in Hell."

I mean, that's just pure, malicious spite, isn't it? And the church has been oppressing people ever since. And now, 1200 years after those sacrosanct spoil-sports arrived on Europe's shores, here's my opponent doing the church's malevolent bidding by suggesting that we should feel "guilty" about engaging "hedonistic" pursuits during the festive period.

As I understand, this is what my opponent proposes:

* Ostracise Santa Claus and make people save all the money that they were going to spend on the kiddies' Christmas presents and give it to the local priest instead.
(He wants you to vote Con)

* Make everyone fill the little kiddies Christmas stockings full of coal and tell them that that's all they deserve.
(She wants you to vote Pro)

* Force families to gather around crosses rather than Christmas trees.
(God-fearing Christian folk celebrate Christians Con's way)

* Banish poinsettias. And left-wing dissidents.
("Heil Con!")

* Issue a press release stating that the Three Wise Men travelled to Bethlehem in a sleigh pulled by a team of reindeers. Sounds unlikely, but The Sport would probably run the story.
(Con's press propaganda machine in action)

* Ban kissing underneath the mistletoe lest the encounter should develop into full-blown, white-hot sex session and thenceforth post coital dance celebrations.
(Con's plan backfires when a priest celebrates his night of passion with Sister Mary while the bishop inspects the parochial house's floorboards)

* Replace roast turkey, cranberry sauce, sage and onion stuffing, roast potatoes, Yorkshire pudding, chipolatas wrapped in bacon and seasonal vegetables drizzled in a rich, red wine gravy and served with lashings of champagne with a leaf.
(Con's slap-up Christmas feast)

But let's not kid ourselves. It's not just Con that wants to stop people enjoying Christmas. There is already a mass campaign against seasonal fun and frivolity underway and evangelical Christians who want to deprive us of our Yuletide celebrations are leading it.

In the light of these dangerous developments, I urge you all to please vote Pro, if not for my sake, do it for the sake of the poor little kiddies.

Thank you.


I'd like to thank my opponent again for instigating such an important debate, and I can only hope the readers still manage to vote without bias despite my excellent skills in this matter.

Clearly, the church has rained on my opponent's parade, but his appeals to emotion cannot dissuade even the most blasphemous heathen from appreciating the obvious necessity of spiritual intervention in the matter of Yuletide celebrations. Try as he might to discredit the clergy via ad hominem allegories, we cannot escape the absolute urgency required of the church in these evil days. Yuletide cheer must be eradicated.

My opponent's lack of understanding forces him to call our actions oppressive, when they are actually the height of altruism. The church happens to know what's better for people, and much like Obama's political ideologies, our job is to save people from themselves! Therefore, I stand firm that the church is slacking in its job. Contrary to the resolution at hand, the church must inject itself more deeply into Yuletide affairs.

I will now put my opponent's photographs into context:

* ( - My opponent would have you unmistakeably believe that money spent on kids' gifts would be used instead to enable alcoholism in the clergy. This couldn't be further from the truth. Clearly, this priest is blessing the alcohol for use in an anointing. Any consumption following the blessing was done in an effort to avoid being wasteful. Priests are known to have a much higher tolerance for alcohol given the increased purity of their soul.

* ( - Ha! My clever opponent thinks he can appeal to emotion in this matter by showing you a photograph of what is clearly a child suffering from migraines!

* ( - This photo is clearly a fallacy on Pro's part since Christmas Crosses -- like their former conifer counterpart -- are meant for indoors. The fire would obviously not be an allowing form of decoration given the violation of fire marshal codes. Garland, ornaments, and twinkle lights are preferred. For the record, the man in the robes is clearly confused, showing up to a holiday celebration in his Halloween costume.

* ( - My opponent appeals to emotion once again, having you gasp in shock at an photo associating the church with Nazi agenda when this photo is shows nothing more than two Catholic double-agents. As anyone can see, the church leader on the left is not even good a faking a Nazi scowl.

* ( - How the church chooses to raise awareness of the brilliance of the three wise men is up to them. The point is not in how we do it but that we do it. Eternal damnation is at stake here!

* ( - This is actually a perfect demonstration of the kind of respond the church must employ. If a child can be spanked into obedience, then so can an adult be kicked into it.

* ( - The feast presented in my opponent's photo is befitting of the most pious of congregants. If only all of mankind could engage in such a feast; then perhaps world hunger could be averted even if just for the holidays!

My opponent ends his final round with pictures of Christians offering very generic advice, none of which necessarily attacks fun and frivolity. We're just saying, "Hey, be careful." It's like saying, "Go ahead and bungee jump, just take care to check the cord length before you launch." What harm is there in this?

In the final analysis, my opponent thinks the church should let the Holidays be. I submit that the church's very job is to evangelize to the masses, and hijacking the holidays is a reasonable way to do so. My opponent wants to have fun today, and we're merely asking him and the rest of the heathen world to wait until they're dead. Is it really so much to ask? So, dear readers, do the right thing. Vote Con. And send the message to all conservative would-be vote bombers to read this debate today!
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
Lol. Believe it or not, those 7 points aren't from me. Perhaps a sympathy vote? I extend my appreciation to this voter, whoever you are, for seeing the obvious truth.
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
Thanks. Funny you should say that. I haven't upset him recently, though he did vote bomb two of my debates before his banishment. I had a feeling that my remarks would not be very funny to some.

For what it's worth, trying to debate comically with you is like playing golf with Tiger.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
It wasn't me - I can't vote! Actually, I don't think that's fair, I thought your contributions were really clever and funny. You haven't upset Josh recently, have you?
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
Lol. I'm getting hosed. Gee, was it something I said?
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Benefits of not growing up in America. You are safe. :D
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
oh no! I've been rumbled! I didn't know you got Father Ted over there!
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Ahh - Father Ted, good to see him again, Brian. :D
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70