Why was Christmas banned in America until 1820?
By the way, there is a certain fluidity on exactly where Christmas was banned until 1820. Spanish and remaining English colonies? Those taken over from France? Hardly. But among 13 Colonies, I do not think it probable that either Virginia or Catholic Maryland ever was stupid enough to ban Christmas. That said, here I introduce my somewhat more detailed refutations of their monumental stupidities:
Here is one lie:
"It was during the pre-Christian midwinter pagan celebrations of Scandinavia's Norsemen where today's Christmas traditions began, as a means of honouring the pagan sex and fertility god Yule"
- 1) Pagan sex and fertility god is not named Yule but Frey.
- 2) Picture accompanying those words was of Odin. Perhaps not quite wrong, since Yulner is another name, it seems according to Swedish wikipedia, for Odin. He was not a sex and fertility god.
- 3) As to twelve days, that is simply the period between the Christmas date from very much further south than Scandinavia's Norsemen and Epiphany, also from much earlier Christian lands.
- 4) Exactly when the Odin related feast was celebrated is not known. It was however a feast of three nights, not of twelve days accordinvg to our ONLY source, Snorri:
Here are real customs from mid winter sacrifice:
16. ABOUT SACRIFICES.
Sigurd, earl of Hlader, was one of the greatest men for sacrifices, and so had Hakon his father been; and Sigurd always presided on account of the king at all the festivals of sacrifice in the Throndhjem country. It was an old custom, that when there was to be sacrifice all the bondes should come to the spot where the temple stood and bring with them all that they required while the festival of the sacrifice lasted. To this festival all the men brought ale with them; and all kinds of cattle, as well as horses, were slaughtered, and all the blood that came from them was called "hlaut", and the vessels in which it was collected were called hlaut-vessels. Hlaut-staves were made, like sprinkling brushes, with which the whole of the altars and the temple walls, both outside and inside, were sprinkled over, and also the people were sprinkled with the blood; but the flesh was boiled into savoury meat for those present. The fire was in the middle of the floor of the temple, and over it hung the kettles, and the full goblets were handed across the fire; and he who made the feast, and was a chief, blessed the full goblets, and all the meat of the sacrifice. And first Odin's goblet was emptied for victory and power to his king; thereafter, Niord's and Freyja's goblets for peace and a good season. Then it was the custom of many to empty the brage-goblet (1); and then the guests emptied a goblet to the memory of departed friends, called the remembrance goblet. Sigurd the earl was an open-handed man, who did what was very much celebrated; namely, he made a great sacrifice festival at Hlader of which he paid all the expenses. Kormak Ogmundson sings of it in his ballad of Sigurd: --
"Of cup or platter need has none
The guest who seeks the generous one, --
Sigurd the Generous, who can trace
His lineage from the giant race;
For Sigurd's hand is bounteous, free, --
The guardian of the temples he.
He loves the gods, his liberal hand
Scatters his sword's gains o'er the land-"
ENDNOTES: (1) The brage-goblet, over which vows were made. -- L.
"during the month of December"
Well, no. Midwinter does not state "winter solstice".
There is exact information that the Hawk Night was AFTER our Christmas. Until one changed that through adaptation to Christianity.
There is a probability that the Hawk Night may well have been 14th of January.
If the "winter half of the year" lasts from October 14th to April 14, then January 14th is exactly in the middle = Midwinter. A Norse synonym for Yule.
However, it may have been as late as February.
Animal or human sacrifices were offered on each of those days?
You are speaking of the Pagan Temple of Elder Uppsala. It is much more likely we are dealing with nine days, since on each day there were nine sacrificed beings. Humans one day, horses another.
And of course NOTHING ties this to Christmas.
And a BIG minus on your credibility for using "encyclopedia of White Magic" as if it were a credible source!
The Wiccans WANT people to believe that pre-Christian traditions are available just by scratching a little on Christian ones.
Your argument is basically that if Baal was born around Winter Solstice, Jesus Christ must have been born on Summer solstice to keep as far away from Baal as possible.
But in that case St John the Baptist would have been born under Winter Solstice.
So Dionysos is supposed to have been born during the winter solstice?
Which of these quotations, not from Encyclopedia of White Magic, but from real ancient Pagans and Christians who had known them, on the mythological topic of Dionysos' birth says so?
Greek geek site on "theoi" : Dionysios
In Athens, smaller or rural Dionysiae were held during Poseideon, roughly december, but probably at different dates per Attic Deme.
[One may add that Poseideon does not correspond to a precise set of dates in December, but that any given date in Poseideon would be different dates in December for the different years in which Attic Calendar coexisted with Roman calendars, Julian or pre-Julian.]
Now, the emperor Aurelian extended the season previously known as Saturnalia from dec. 17 through 23 to dec. 17 through 25. So? Perhaps that was a provocation against Christians who in some localities already were celebrating Christmas in December 25. Or a way of giving them a chance to, in appearance, comply. Previous to him, Saturnalia ended Dec. 23 and Christians who celebrated Christmas were doing penance during advent in those days. Or perhaps the penitential season of advent comes from a Christian distaste for Saturnalia. Either way, at least previous to Aurelian, Saturnalia were over by Dec. 23, 24:00 midnight or when ever the feast was supposed to give way to ordinary days again.
Now, let us check about Aurelian.
Here is a wikipedian discussion about relations between Sol Invictus and Christmas:
The Philocalian calendar of AD 354 gives a festival of "Natalis Invicti" on 25 December. There is limited evidence that this festival was celebrated before the mid-4th century.
The idea that Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Jesus on 25 December because this was the date of an already existing festival of the Sol Invictus was expressed in an annotation to a manuscript of a work by 12th-century Syrian bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi. The scribe who added it wrote: "It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day." 
This idea became popular especially in the 18th and 19th centuries.
In the judgement of the Church of England Liturgical Commission, this view has been seriously challenged by a view based on an old tradition, according to which the date of Christmas was fixed at nine months after 25 March, the date of the vernal equinox, on which the Annunciation was celebrated. The Jewish calendar date of 14 Nisan was believed to be that of the beginning of creation, as well as of the Exodus and so of Passover, and Christians held that the new creation, both the death of Jesus and the beginning of his human life, occurred on the same date, which some put at 25 March in the Julian calendar. It was a traditional Jewish belief that great men lived a whole number of years, without fractions, so that Jesus was considered to have been conceived on 25 March, as he died on 25 March, which was calculated to have coincided with 14 Nisan. Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) gave 25 March as the day of creation and of the conception of Jesus. The tractate De solstitia et aequinoctia conceptionis et nativitatis Domini nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae falsely attributed to John Chrysostom also argued that Jesus was conceived and crucified on the same day of the year and calculated this as 25 March. A passage of the Commentary on the prophet Daniel by Hippolytus of Rome, written in about 204, has also been appealed to.
Wiki: Sol Invictus
Footnotes to this passage:
36 Wallraff 2001: 174–177. Hoey (1939: 480) writes: "An inscription of unique interest from the reign of Licinius embodies the official prescription for the annual celebration by his army of a festival of Sol Invictus on December 19". The inscription (Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 8940) actually prescribes an annual offering to Sol on November 18 (die XIV Kal(endis) Decemb(ribus), i.e. on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of December).
37. Text at  Parts 6 and 12 respectively.
38. (cited in Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, Ramsay MacMullen. Yale:1997, p. 155)
39. Michael Alan Anderson, Symbols of Saints (ProQuest 2008 ISBN 978-0-54956551-2), p. 45
40. The Day God Took Flesh
41. 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia: Christmas: Natalis Invicti
42. "Although this view is still very common, it has been seriously challenged" - Church of England Liturgical Commission, The Promise of His Glory: Services and Prayers for the Season from All Saints to Candlemas" (Church House Publishing 1991 ISBN 978-0-71513738-3) quoted in The Date of Christmas and Epiphany
43. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article "Christmas"
44. Alexander V. G. Allen, Christian Institutions (Scribner, New York 1897), p. 474
45. Frank C. Senn, Introduction to Christian Liturgy (Fortress Press 2012 ISBN 978-0-80069885-0), p. 114
46. William J. Colinge, Historical Dictionary of Catholicism (Scarecrow Press 2012 ISBN 978-0-81085755-1), p. 99]
47. Joseph F. Kelly, The Origins of Christmas (Liturgical Press 2004 ISBN 978-0-81462984-0), p. 60
48. Hippolytus and December 25th as the date of Jesus’ birth
Since link in footnote 48 was missing - here is to St Hippolytus' commentary on Daniel:
Dec. 25 - Textual Tradition of Hippolytus Commentary on Daniel
No - the Saturnalia were NOT a later name for a feast instituted by Aurelian. They were a feast already in place before he came on the scene. And, as already noted, ended on Dec. 23, traditionally.
4:56 "Up to this time, the birth of Jesus had not been celebrated at all."
Wrong, Sub Tuum Praesidium is an early Christmas hymn from Egypt [original in Coptic, translations in Greek and Latin]***.
5:33 "the Church's policy of changing the dates of Biblical events"
In a sense, yes, the dates changed as the calendars changed. Jewish calendar was a lunisolar year with in some years a leap month. The Jewish dates were exchanged for dates on the Julian - later Gregorian - calendar.
But apart from that, no, there was no need to change dates to suit pagan festivals. There were so many Pagan dates, and there were so many Christian events, both Biblical and of the category one could call "Acts 28" - i e Church History - that there was no shortage of Pagan dates to adapt to events dear to Christian piety on same or corresponding dates. Even without positively changing dates.
One exception though: All Saints as commemoration of day when Pantheon after exorcism was remade into the Church of Our Lady and All Saints (one that returned to non-Christian use in/after 1870, after Rome was taken by the Liberals) was changed to compete with the Irish Samhain. Like Christmas to Saturnalia, it was not same date, but the Christian feast was after the Pagan one. Samhain = October 31. All Saints = November 1, making October 31 a Vigil Fast.
5:40 Pope St Gregory I had indeed ordered Saint Augustine of Canterbury to incorporate pagan practises, BUT not "any and all" of them. Only dates and places. Perhaps dances and cuisine too.
Pagan temple = same place as rubble heap of Pagan Temple = same place as New Church after rubble heap.
Pagan festival = consult the martyrology for what Christian event is fitting to replace the Pagan reason for the season.
But this order came well after the date for Christmas was already set.
Any directly idolatrous practise was of course meant to go.
6:02 "Common practises included open sex in the streets, rioting, murder, druidic Halloween rituals?"
First of all, there are plays that are innocent which this kind of learned or wannabe learned Puritans is wont to call "druidic rituals" at a moment's notice.
Then I would like to know how this can be said to be a fair resumé of common Christmas rituals.
Obviously it has happened that crimes have been committed on Christmas. See for instance "Home Alone" - would you consider burglary a modern Christmas ritual, just because the two burglars in that comedy choose Christmas as a good opportunity?
Of course not! And I believe there are families, not having left Macaulay Culkin at home, who come home after Christmas vacation and find their house has had a less than welcome visit. That does not make the "Christmas burglary" a ritual of the Church!
1652 Christ's Mass was outlawed?
First of all, Cromwell is NOT a trustworthy witness about how "out of hand" Christmas celebrations had gotten in England, nor are his Puritans. They were all fanatics and bloodthirsty thugs, the robbers of Ireland, and Cromwell himself was the man who for Irish Catholics had the plan "to Hell or Connaught" (with them).
No, it was Cromwell, it was Puritanism that was out of hand.
Second, if Christmas had gotten out of hand in England by 1652, that may very well be due to the deleterious influence of the Reformation and of Anglican shilly-shallying on diverse Theological issues.
6:27 "The Puritans took the Biblical mandate seriously, which commanded that Christianity be pure and separate from Paganism"
No, it was Old Testament Hebraism that was separate from Gentiles. The New Covenant very clearly includes them by the mandate "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek".
So far from taking the relevant commands of the Bible seriously, Puritanism flouted them.
Not the least the command "let no one judge you" on feasts or food or drink.
6:44 1656 Christmas was legalised again? Good!
6:58 "The Puritans had lost England" (because they could not persecute Christmas there!) "but they held high hopes for the New World."
Reminds me of what Chesterton said about Mayflower. The Americans have instituted a feast of thanksgiving for the Pilgrim Fathers arriving there, we should institute one for them leaving here, he said.
And oh boy, was he right, according to what you say!
7:09 "They came here for religious freedom, they came here to be free to worship God" no doubt (before I continue video) according to their conscience. Which conscience mandated them to deprive better men than themsleves from the freedom of worshipping God according to their better informed conscience - including in the matter of actually celebrating Christmas. Now I will hear the rest of McKinney's phrase.
Ah "without a hierarchy, and without the corruption of the Church that they had known before".
Well, Anglicanism was actually corrupt through lack of true Catholic hierarchy. Not through presence of it! See decision of Pope Leo XIII on Anglican orders (recently openly flouted by Bergoglio).
They came here with a "clear knowledge" of the dangers of the "Pagan" practises that had been so dear to their ancestors?
I am reminded of the Little Horn, of the King of the North, of a man who shall not worship the God of his fathers.
Pagan rituals of Halloween?
Frankly, the Sunday Schools were doing a good thing and doing what Catholics had been doing for centuries, all over the Catholic parts of Europe.
Apart from that, "blatantly Pagan roots" and so on is simply assuming her "demonstration" was obvious, while in fact it was not.
The one thing that was blatantly anything, it was blatantly Irish Catholic.
[And that was obviously enough to make it "Pagan" in the eyes of Ulster Scots and Williamite Orangist Freemasonry!]
During the Saturnalia holly was hung up?
I would for one like the reference in Macrobius for that!
But even if true, this is exactly the kind of thing that can have an innocent meaning and which can also therefore be accepted by Christians if used in that meaning.
13:23 - 13:32 (note that this reference to Wiccan rituals comes at a time** that can be considered as 1332, divide that by two and you see what I mean ...)
It is so abhominably stupid to refer to Wiccan rituals as evidence that Christmas customs are of Wiccan origin. All of these Christmas customs are older than the new religion called Wicca, which is to its supposed Pagan roots exactly what the Reformation was to supposed Christian roots beyond and earlier than the common customs - ecclesiastical or otherwise - of Christendom.
This is where we get our custom of hanging mistletoes in doorways ... c'mon!
Has it ever occurred to you that:
- kissing the cheek is a pretty innocent way of starting a relationship, including marriage, though not obliging that way? or that:
- some people are shy and some are plain or even ugly and can need that extra help? or that:
- some people by remaining unmarried instead would not thereby be hallowed in chastity and holiness, but rather be debased by unchastity or sourness or both?
And your expertise on that spell with mistle-toes, does it come from that wonderfully accurate (not!) source Encyclopedia of White Magic again, the cover of which was shown more than once already?
I find evolutionism stupid, but this is also stupid.
14:11 "evergreen trees ..." (will not bother to repeat that stupid stuff) the Christmas tree comes from the 17th Century Bavaria!
Centuries after the conversion of Tassilo from Idolatry to Catolic Christianity.
Eight centuries between a supposed Pagan root, in the archaeological remains of which we find nothing that looks like Christmas trees, and an emergence of an overtly Christian thing in an obviously Christian country, supposed to be - according to this idiotic "expertise" - a reemergence of Paganism.
How stupid can one be if one accepts Christmas trees as idolatrous!?
14:20 "during the winter solstice" - there was even no Pagan feast in sight in Scandinavia, midwinter referring not to winter solstice, but to middle of winter season! - "trees were chopped down, brought inside and decorated as idols to be worshipped" - well, I would like to see a good old reference to any of the most direct sources now available for Norse Paganism before believing such a thing.
You see, the most direct sources now available for Norse Paganism is NOT this Encyclopedia of White Magic which this show has referred to ore than once, but rather they are things like Adam of Bremen, Saxo Grammaticus, Snorre, the Sagas, when ever they set aside any passage on describing Pagan customs.
SO FAR - and I have done my reading on Norse Paganism, the mythology was interesting, precisely as Marvel comics had been earlier on - SO FAR there has not even once been any of them stating any such thing.
Idols were cut out of wood? SURE. But their shape was not logs put into the fire, nor trees with branches still on them. Their shape was wooden sculpture. How could these guys miss that little Emil of Lönneberga, each time his father chases him into the toolshed were idols? Except the rural dean, which was of course° a voodoo doll.
Here is the quote from wikipedia:
Most of the time Emil plays a prank, he escapes his choleric father's wrath by running away quickly and locking himself in a tool shed. Since the door can also be locked from the outside, his father responds by locking him in there for a while as punishment. Emil is usually embarrassed by what he has done, but it is not a severe punishment for Emil, who likes sitting in the shed and takes to carving a wooden figure during each of his stays. He eventually accumulates 369 of them, except for the one his mother buries because she claims it looks too much like the rural dean.
Wiki : Emil i Lönneberga
That is FAR closer to the Norse Idols than Christmas trees are. But not near close enough!
* As a Swede and a Mythology buff, I am very well placed to know HOW incompetent the show was.
** Saw wrong. Probably either lack of sleep or someone abusing excommunications like a kind of kabbalah magic against me. I stopped the video at 13:23 and read 13:32.
*** And yes, Coptic version of Sub Tuum Praesidium does predate Aurelian, and yes again, it is ONLY the Latin version that actually omits a pretty clear reference to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, i e her total purity and freedom from Original Sin, from the Moment of Her Conception in Her mother's womb.
° To the very stupid and devoid of sense of humour: it was of course not a voodoo doll, I was ironic. But the stupidity of Emil's mother (a stupidity of which the parson's daughter Astrid can have seen genuine examples, which may have prompted her apostasy from Christianity) was so reminding of the stupidity of these Christmas accusers and liars.